Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future EU demand for bioenergy (ReceBio).
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: Finland, Germany, Italy, biodiversity, bioenergy, biomass, conservation of resources, electrical energy, energy efficiency, energy policy, environmental indicator, environmental protection, heating, information medium, management of resources, reduction of gas emissions, report, sustainable development

Study on impacts on resource 
efficiency of future EU demand 
for bioenergy  
(ReceBio) 

Final report 

mmmll 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

ISBN 978-92-79-58757-3 
doi:10.2779/968246 

© European Union, 2016 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONSORTIUM LEADER:  
Nicklas Forsell 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 
E-Mail:forsell@iiasa.ac.at 

CONSORTIUM MEMBERS: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 
Öko-Institut e.V., Germany 
Indufor Oy, Finland 
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), United Kingdom 
European Forest Institute (EFI), Finland 

AUTHORS: 
IIASA:  N.  Forsell,  A.  Korosuo,  P.  Havlík,  H.  Valin,  P.  Lauri,  M.  Gusti,  G.  Kindermann, 
M. Obersteiner 
Öko-Institut: H. Böttcher, K. Hennenberg, K. Hünecke, K. Wiegmann 
Indufor: M. Pekkanen, P. Nuolivirta 
IEEP: C. Bowyer, S. Nanni, B. Allen, J. Poláková 
EFI: J. Fitzgerald, M. Lindner  

DISCLAIMER:  
This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects 
the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any 
use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

        
         
 
       
         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROJECT MATERIAL: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/studies_en.htm 

CITATION OF THE FINAL REPORT: 
Forsell, N. et al. 2016: Study on impacts on resource  efficiency of future  EU demand 
for bioenergy (ReceBio). Final report. Project: ENV.F.1/ETU/2013/0033. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union, 2016. 43 p. 

CITATIONS OF THE TASK REPORTS: 

Task 1:  
Pekkanen, M., Bowyer, C., Forsell, N., Hünecke, K., Korosuo, A., Nanni, S., Nuolivirta, 
P. 2014. Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future EU demand for bioenergy. 
Task 1: EU state of play. 121 p.  

Task 2:  
Hennenberg, K., Böttcher, H., Wiegmann, K., Forsell, N., Korosuo, A., Obersteiner, M., 
Bowyer, C., Nanni, S., Allen, B., Poláková, J., Pekkanen, M., Fitzgerald, J. 2014. Study 
on impacts on resource efficiency of future EU demand for bioenergy. Task 2: Analysis 
of impacts of biomass production on natural resources and the global environment. 61 
p. 

Task 3:  
Forsell,  N.,  Korosuo,  A.,  Havlík,  P.,  Valin,  H.,  Lauri,  P.,  Gusti,  M.,  Kindermann,  G., 
Obersteiner,  M.  2016.  Study  on  impacts  on  resource  efficiency  of  future  EU  demand 
for bioenergy. Task 3: Modelling of impacts of an increased EU bioenergy demand on 
biomass production, use and prices. 109 p. 

Task 4:  
Böttcher,  H.,  Hennenberg,  K.,  Forsell,  N.  2016.  Study  on  impacts  on  resource 
efficiency of future EU demand for bioenergy. Task 4: Resource efficiency implications 
of the scenarios. 77 p.  

Task 5:  
Fitzgerald, J., Bowyer, C., Nanni, S., Forsell, N., Korosuo, A., Lindner, M. 2016. Study 
on  impacts  on  resource  efficiency  of  future  EU  demand  for  bioenergy.  Task  5:  Case 
studies. 50 p.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 5 

Biomass use for material and energy production........................................................ 5 

Sustainability assessment ....................................................................................... 7 

Case studies ......................................................................................................... 8 

Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 8 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................10 

MODELLING APPROACH AND FRAMING OF THE STUDY ..............................................12 

ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - METHODOLOGY .........................................15 

THE BASELINE SCENARIO – A STARTING POINT FOR ASSESSMENT ............................17 

Key results and trends in the Baseline scenario ........................................................18 

Changes in wood flows and the use of bioenergy feedstocks ......................................18 

Harvest rate and forestry production .......................................................................20 

KEY RESULTS FOR SCENARIOS WITH VARYING EU BIOENERGY DEMAND ....................21 

Key results and trends – understanding different patterns of bioenergy demand...........21 

Harvest rate and forestry production .......................................................................22 

The changing profile of biomass feedstocks use ........................................................25 

LAND USE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................28 

Land use change ..................................................................................................28 

Biodiversity ..........................................................................................................29 

GHG emissions .....................................................................................................31 

CONSEQUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ON BIOMASS SUPPLY ................33 

Implications for production of biomass in EU ............................................................33 

Implications for trade of biomass ............................................................................34 

Implications for land use in EU and in the RoW .........................................................35 

Implications for GHG emissions from the land use sector ...........................................36 

Implications of combined constraints for biomass resources efficiency .........................38 

RESOURCE AND POLICY ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED CASE STUDY COUNTRIES ..............40 

LIMITATIONS AND VALUE ADDED OF THE ASSESSMENT ...........................................42 

CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................43 

 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  project  was  commissioned  to  examine  the  resource  efficiency  implications  of 
increased  EU  use  of  bioenergy  for  electricity  and  heat  until  2050.  Methods  of  analysis 
include  an  extensive  literature  and  statistical  review,  detailed  GLOBIOM  modelling  of 
cross-sectorial  wood  biomass  production  and  use,  and  in-depth  analysis  of  the 
implications  on  a  multitude  of  sustainability  indicators.  The  results  for  biomass  use  for 
material  and  energy  are  reported  for  EU28,  while  the  sustainability  indicators  are 
assessed  both  for  the  EU  and  globally.  In  addition,  country  specific  assessments  were 
carried out for three case countries (Finland, Germany, and Italy) to examine the results 
against country-specific policies and resources.  

The detailed results of the project are published as five separate task reports that can be 
found at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/studies_en.htm. 

Biomass use for material and energy production 

To  analyse  the  implications  of  increasing  bioenergy  consumption,  five  prospective 
scenarios were constructed and analysed within the project. The Baseline scenario was 
specified as close as possible to that of the EU Reference Scenario 2013 published by the 
Commission.  The  Baseline  scenario  depicts  the  development  of  biomass  use  under 
bioenergy policies that aim at a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the 
EU28  by  2020,  whereas  the  EU  proposed  climate-energy  targets  for  2030  are  not 
considered.  The  results  show  that  increased  demand  for  bioenergy  will  already  by  2030 
lead  to  a  considerable  increase  in  the  EU  domestic  production  of  woody  biomass  (an 
increase  by  as  much  as  10%  by  2030  in  comparison  to  2010  levels)  and  increased  EU 
reliance on imported biomass feedstock, in particular import of wood pellets (an increase 
by  90%  by  2030  in  comparison  to  2010  levels).  From  2030  to  2050,  the  EU  domestic 
production  of  biomass  stabilizes  as  a  result  of  slower  development  of  EU  bioenergy 
demand. The largest changes in the EU28 production of biomass feedstocks for bioenergy 
are  seen  in  the  development  of  short  rotation  coppice  (SRC)  which  together  with  EU 
import  of  wood  pellets  are  foreseen  to  increase  considerably  in  the  future.  In  addition, 
the  project  results  show  clear  intensification  in  the  use  of  EU  forests,  as  well  as  an 
increase  in  the  EU  net  import  of  roundwood.  The  increase  in  EU  forest  harvest  is  both 
driven  by  the  increasing  demand  for  bioenergy  and  the  foreseen  increasing  demand  of 
woody  materials.  Another  important  source  of  bioenergy  feedstock  are  by-products  of 
wood-processing  industries:  half  of  the  total  biomass  for  heat  and  power  production  in 
2010  was  retrieved  from  industrial  by-products  of  wood  material  industries  (sawdust, 
wood  chips,  bark  and  black  liquor).  The  high  share  of  by-products  as  bioenergy 
feedstocks  is  foreseen  to  remain  also  in  the  future.  This  development  highlights  the 
future  importance  of  sawmills  as  a  provider  of  by-products  both  for  the  bioenergy  and 
material sector through the downstream wood flows. 

The four other policy scenarios each focus on a particular issue in bioenergy demand and 
trade  of  biomass.  The  development  seen  in  the  Baseline  scenario  is  found  to  be 
accentuated in the EU Emission Reduction scenario, which builds on the policy target 
of  decreasing  the  GHG  emissions  by  80%  by  2050  in  the  EU.  In  this  scenario,  the 
development of biomass use follows that of the Baseline scenario until 2030. Thereafter, 
the results show a  considerable increase in the EU import of wood pellets and domestic 
production of SRC. The increasing production of SRC in the EU after 2030 is seen to lead 
to  some  reductions  in  cropland  and  grazing  land  areas  as  compared  to  the  Baseline 
scenario,  which  in  turn  affect  food  and  feed  production.  Additionally,  we  see  also  large 
quantities  of  roundwood  directly  used  for  bioenergy  production  in  small  and  large-scale 
conversion facilities, especially by 2050. In other words, the bioenergy demand increases 
to an extent where stemwood that is of industrial roundwood quality and could be used for 
material  purposes  by  the  forest-based  sector,  is  instead  being  used  directly  for  energy 
production.  The  increased  use  of  biomass  for  energy  has  a  direct  impact  on  forest 
harvests, which are almost 9% higher than in the Baseline results in 2050.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        5 

 
 
 
Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario  investigates  the  effects  of  policies  that 
increase  the  EU  bioenergy  demand  similarly  until  2020,  but  stay  constant  thereafter. 
There  are  only  small  differences  between  this  scenario  and  the  Baseline  on  the  overall 
aggregate material production sector. However, compared to the Baseline scenario, there 
is  more  particleboard  production  and  less  sawnwood  production  in  this  scenario,  driven 
by decreased demand for industrial by-products from sawmills (wood chips and sawdust) 
for bioenergy production. A clear difference is also seen in the composition of feedstocks 
used for energy production. Most importantly, the sourcing of domestically produced SRC 
and import of pellets is smaller than in the Baseline scenario. Pellet imports increase until 
2020, but remain almost constant thereafter.  

The  third  policy  scenario,  Increased  Rest  of  the  World  (RoW)  Bioenergy  Demand 
scenario,  investigates  a  future  increase  in  the  bioenergy  demand  in  the  RoW,  together 
with  an increase  in  the  EU  as  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario.  Most  importantly, 
countries outside of EU are more reliant on their own biomass sources to fulfil their own 
increasing  bioenergy  demand.  Consequently,  this  scenario  depicts  a  situation  where  EU 
may  not  be  able  to  import  as  much  of  the  biomass  feedstocks  as  in  the  previous 
scenarios.  Indeed,  the  results  show  that  with an increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand,  net 
EU imports of wood pellets are 25% lower than in the EU Emission Reduction scenario in 
2050. In addition, also EU roundwood imports decrease by more than 20% in 2050. This 
requires EU to source more biomass from domestic SRC production: in this scenario, the 
production  of  SRC  in  the  EU28  is  the  highest  of  all  scenarios.  Material  production  levels 
stay at almost the same level as in the EU Emission Reduction scenario. However, as EU 
roundwood  imports  decrease,  the  domestic  EU  forest  harvest  level  increases  slightly 
more than in the EU Emission reduction scenario.  

The fourth scenario, Increased EU Biomass Import scenario, investigates the impact 
of  increasing  EU  reliance  on  imported  biomass  resources  and  domestic  production 
triggered  by  decreased  trade  costs.  Consequently,  EU  net  import  of  roundwood  grows 
22% more by 2050 compared to the EU Emission Reduction scenario, and EU net import 
of wood pellets grows to more than four times the amount foreseen in the EU  Emission 
Reduction  scenario.  Here,  Latin  America  and  South-East  Asia  grow  into  important  pellet 
suppliers,  alongside  with  Canada  and  the  former  Soviet  Union.  Following  the  increased 
dependency  of imported feedstocks for bioenergy, domestic harvests  in the EU  will only 
increase modestly over time in this scenario. The harvest level in 2050 is 11% lower than 
in the EU Emission Reduction scenario and 3.7% lower than in the Baseline scenario. The 
decreased competition for woody biomass feedstocks also leads to a slight increase in the 
EU material production level (especially particleboard and chemical pulp production). 

In  addition  to  the  analysis  of  the  various  scenarios,  the  effects  of  the  variation  of 
central  modelling  assumptions  were  assessed  based  on  the  EU  Emission  Reduction 
scenario.  In  particular,  th  sensitivity  analysis  highlighted  the  substitution  potential 
between domestic SRC production and pellets import. In other words, it is expected that 
if  the  increase  in  SRC  production  does  not  materialize  as  expected  in  the  EU  Emission 
Reduction  scenario,  then  a  large  share  of  the  resulting  gap  of  feedstock  needed  for 
energy  purposes  will  be  fulfilled  by  pellet  imports,  and  vice  versa.  At  the  same  time,  it 
was  seen  that  in  the  scenarios  with  increasing  bioenergy  demand,  the  cascading  and 
multiple  use  of  wood  through  the  value  chains  of  the  forest-based  industries  and 
bioenergy  sector  will  increase  from  2010  until  2030,  but  decrease  afterwards.  The 
decrease in the cascading use of wood after 2030 results mainly from the large quantities 
of  roundwood  directly  used  for  bioenergy  production  as  seen  in  the  Emission  Reduction 
scenario. After 2030, demand for woody biomass in the bioenergy sector is projected to 
increase  more  than  the  intensification  in  the  use  of  industrial  by-products  for  material 
and energy purposes. Two potential policies for increase the cascading use of wood were 
evaluated.  The  analysis  shows  that  an  increasing  use  of  recycled  wood  for  material 
production has the additional benefit of decreasing the production of SRC in the EU28, as 
well  as  EU  imports  of  wood  pellets  from  RoW  (see  Box  3  for  further  information 
concerning  the  analysis).  On  the  other  hand,  while  an  economic  disincentive  for  the 
direct energy use of virgin wood would increase the cascading use of wood, it would also 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        6 

 
 
lead to an increasing amount of land dedicated to the production of SRC within the EU28 
and an increasing import of pellets from the RoW. 

Sustainability assessment 

Sustainability  implications  of  the  scenarios  were  assessed  using  two  approaches: 
comparing direct impacts of the policies on a number of environmental indicators across 
the  scenarios,  and  through  introducing  constraints  into  the  model  that  aim  at  reducing 
specific environmental impacts. 

When  comparing  Baseline  and  policy  scenarios  for  EU28  the  chosen  indicators  for 
assessing  environmental  impacts  related  to  biodiversity,  GHG  and  land  use  tend  to  be 
affected  the  most.  In  general,  for  most  environmental  aspects  deviations  from  the 
Baseline  scenario  are  of  similar  percentage  change  or  smaller  for  the  RoW  compared  to 
impacts on EU28, except for the scenario simulating an increased demand for bioenergy 
in RoW. 

Land use in the Baseline scenario in EU28 is characterized by an increase of cropland 
(including  SRC)  and  total  forest  area  at  the  expense  of  other  natural  land  (abandoned 
cropland,  unused  grassland,  etc.).  Also,  for  the  land  use  pattern  in  the  RoW,  a  clear 
increase of cropland and a decrease of other natural land can be observed. Outside EU28, 
the  grazing land  area  increases  while  the  area  of  unused  forest  decreases.  The  reasons 
for the loss differ and can either be the conversion to used forests as well as conversion 
to cropland or grazing land. The dynamics of forest area change differ for world regions. 
The conversion of forest in certain regions of the world is contrasted by the expansion of 
forest area through afforestation in other parts of the world. 

Compared  to  the  Baseline  scenario,  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  demand  scenario 
leads  to  a  lower  amount  of  cropland  area  and  higher  amounts  of  other  natural  land  in 
EU28, which is related to a considerably reduced area of SRC. The area of grazing land is 
also slightly higher as compared to the Baseline scenario. While the total forest area does 
not differ between the two scenarios too much, there are comparably large shifts within 
the  forest  from  used  forest  to  unused.  As  expected,  the  land  use  patterns  in  the 
Increased RoW bioenergy demand  scenario differ most from the  Baseline scenario, 
when  looking  outside  EU28,  especially  in  2050.  Changes  in  the  other  three  policy 
scenarios  seem  to  be  almost  not  significant in this  comparison.  The  impacts  are  related 
to  the  conversion  of  more  unused  forest  to  used  forest  and  conversion  of  other  natural 
land  to  cropland,  which  is  directly  related  to  an  increase  in  the  bioenergy  demand  in 
RoW. 

In  order  to  limit  the  most  significant  environmental  impacts,  specific  constraints  are 
imposed on key indicators: Forest area available for wood production can be used as a 
proxy  for  the  intensity  of  forest  management.  If  forests  in  EU  are  protected  from 
further  intensification  (i.e.  through  constrained  conversion  of  forests  available  for  wood 
production),  an  increased  production  of  SRC  can  be  observed  globally  (comparably  less 
SRC  develops  if  constraints  are  put  on  the  conversion  of  other  natural  land  in  EU).  In 
addition, there is a significant intensification of forest management in forests of the RoW 
associated with such a constraint. This area is slightly exceeding the area being excluded 
by  the  constraint  in  EU28,  so  globally  in  total  more  forest  area  is  converted  if  the 
constraint is applied to EU forests. 

The development of areas of high biodiversity value (HBV) is a key indicator for assessing 
impacts on biodiversity. The conversion of these areas is very likely related to a loss of 
biodiversity. Already in the Baseline scenario, in many regions of the world a significant 
conversion  of  areas  of  HBV  (including  forest,  grazing  land,  cropland  and  other  natural 
land)  is  likely  to  occur  until  2050.  Impacts  of  the  policy  scenarios  on  HBV  land  in  the 
EU28  are  comparably  low  due  to  the  fact  that  only  small  areas  fall into  the  category  of 
high  biodiversity  value.  From  a  global  perspective,  the  conversion  of  HBV  land  is  more 
relevant as the relative share of land classified as HBV is larger. Unused forests form the 
largest share, followed by other natural land and grazing land. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        7 

 
 
If land of HBV is protected from being converted in the model, more pressure for biomass 
production  can  be  observed  for  the  areas  that  are  not  protected,  associated  with  more 
land  conversion.  Constraining  the  conversion  of  land  with  high  biodiversity  value 
worldwide  has  implications  for  biomass  production  in  EU28,  leading  to  more  domestic 
wood harvest (used for the production of Harvested Wood Products (HWP) to be exported 
to  the  RoW)  and  decreased  EU  net-imports  of  sawlogs,  pulpwood,  and  wood  pellets  in 
2050. 

The  Baseline  scenario  describes  overall  net  GHG  emissions  from  LULUCF  as  a 
relatively  stable  net  sink  in  the  EU.  The  forest  sink,  however,  is  projected  to  decline  in 
the EU. This is compensated by a decrease in deforestation emissions and an increase in 
afforestation  removals.  The  decrease  of  the  forest  sink  is  found  to  be  even  stronger  in 
the  two  policy  scenarios  with  increased  domestic  biomass  production,  which  is  in-line 
with other reports and scientific publications. The effects on afforestation GHG removals 
between  policy  scenarios  are  comparatively  small.  The  scenarios  are  also  affecting  non-
CO2  emissions.  Looking  at  total  net  LULUCF  and  Agriculture  sector  emissions,  it  is 
striking that, compared to the Baseline, all scenarios reduce net emissions from LULUCF 
in  the  EU.  Agriculture  emissions  are  higher  for  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  scenario  but 
fully compensated by LULUCF CO2 emission reductions. Looking at RoW, the net LULUCF 
and  Agriculture  emissions  are  projected  to  increase  in  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy 
demand  scenario  but  also  the  EU  emissions  reduction  scenario.  This  implies  that  some 
emissions  are  “exported”  from  EU  to  RoW  when  mitigation  measures  are  applied  within 
the EU. 

When adding restrictions on resource use to the scenarios discussed above, all scenarios 
with  constraints  result in global  net land  use  GHG  emission  reductions  compared  to  the 
EU  Emission  reduction  scenario.  This  means  that  there  are  clear  synergies  between 
protecting  biodiversity,  avoiding  the  intensification  of  unused  forests,  the 
conversion  of  other  natural  land  and  global  net  GHG  emissions  from  the  land 
use sector. However, the effects are different for EU and RoW as reduced production in 
EU is pushed abroad. 

Case studies 

Three case study countries, Finland, Germany and Italy, were analysed in more detail in 
terms of their current and projected biomass use and availability, as well as their existing 
national  policies  affecting  the  use  of  biomass  resources.  The  three  case  study  countries 
were found to vary considerably with respect to the resource availability, existing wood-
based industries, and the scope of the use of biomass for material and energy purposes. 
In terms of future development in the Baseline scenario, intensification of forest use was 
seen especially in Finland, while the development of SRC was prominent in Germany and 
Italy. In addition, especially Finland and Italy were seen to increase their wood biomass 
imports in the future. Overall, the case study analysis supported the modelling approach, 
finding the projected biomass use over time to 2050 to be plausible with regards to the 
current resources and policies in place.  

Conclusions 

This  project  examined  the  resource  efficiency  implications  of  increased  EU  use  of 
bioenergy  for  electricity  and  heat  until  2050.  The  chosen  approach  of  integrating  the 
modelling  of  trade,  biomass  harvest,  material  production,  and  competition  for  biomass 
resources  between  sectors  was  found  essential  in  examining  the  complex  question  of 
resource efficiency of increased bioenergy demand, within the EU and globally. 

The  results  show  that  increased  bioenergy  demand  leads  to  a  stronger  pressure  on  the 
forests in the EU, i.e. higher harvest levels and more intensive use of forests throughout 
the EU. In addition, the results show that high future bioenergy demand levels are likely 
to lead to increased EU biomass imports, especially wood pellets. High bioenergy demand 
levels  are  also  seen  to  counteract  cascading  use  of  wood,  and  even  lead  to  increased 
combustion of roundwood to energy. While on the aggregate level it is seen that the total 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        8 

 
 
production  of  wood  for  material  use  is  not  largely  impacted  by  increasing  bioenergy 
consumption,  there  are  large  sectorial  differences.  Some  material-producing  industries 
(esp. sawmill industries) are projected to increase their profitability, driven by increased 
demand  for  their  by-products  to  be  used  to  energy,  some  industries  will  face  increased 
competition  for  feedstocks  (esp.  particleboard  production).  The  project  also  shows  that 
without  the  additional  biomass  produced  from  fast-growing  plantations  such  as  short 
rotation  coppice,  the  pressure  to  use  roundwood  directly  for  energy  and  EU  biomass 
imports will heavily increase.  

The  modelling  results  point  to  significant  implications  for  land  use  and  GHG  emissions, 
especially  in  scenarios  assuming  high  imports  or  strong  development  of  the  bioenergy 
sector in RoW. If constraints of land conversion are introduced into the model important 
synergies between biodiversity protection and GHG mitigation can be identified. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        9 

 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

In the European Union, biomass use for electricity and heat production is expanding. This 
is  happening  within  a  context  of  increased  use  of  renewable  energy  intended  to  reduce 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  increase  energy  security.  In  general,  the  impact  of 
increased  bioenergy  use  on  resources  and  on  other  biomass-using  sectors  is  not 
sufficiently  well  understood.  The  ReceBio  study, 
to  develop 
understanding  of  the  various  interactions  and  impacts  that  can  arise  as  a  result  of 
different levels of EU demand in bioenergy, and their implications for resource efficiency.  

therefore,  seeks 

The  aim  of  the  “Resource  efficiency  impacts  of  future  EU  bioenergy  demand”  (ReceBio) 
project is to help better understand the potential interactions and impacts resulting from 
increased  EU  demand  for  bioenergy,  and  specifically  the  implications  for  resource 
efficiency.  To  achieve  this,  the  study  as  a  whole  builds  on  the  best  available  data  and 
understanding of biomass resource at present, and models projected use of biomass for 
energy  and  materials  up  to  2050.  The  intention  is  to  understand  the  consequences  on 
resource  efficiency  and  the  environment  of  pursuing  different  bioenergy  pathways.  To 
this  end,  analysis  has  been  undertaken  to  understand  the  consequences  of  fulfilling 
different  levels  of  bioenergy  demand  up  to  2050  and  the  impacts  on:  the  utilisation  of 
different  biomass  feedstocks;  land  use;  land  management;  GHG  emission  and 
biodiversity  consequences.  The  starting  point  for  the  study  is  the  EU  2020  climate  and 
energy targets and the proposed EU 2030 package. In this context the scenarios, and the 
basis  for  determining  the  level  of  bioenergy  demand  to  be  assessed  up  to  2050,  are 
specified  building  on  the  ‘EU  Reference  Scenario’1  as  described  in  the  2014  EU  Impact 
Assessment2  (hereafter,  “2014  IA  report”).  The  project  team  has  conducted  detailed 
analysis of the availability of biomass resources and current use of biomass in the EU. In 
parallel,  a  detailed  assessment  of  literature  reviewing  the  impacts  of  biomass  use  on 
natural  resources  and  the  global  environment  has  been  made.  The  outputs  of  these 
assessments  provided  key  inputs  to  the  model-based  assessment  of  the  implications  of 
biomass resource use.  

The  starting  point  for  the  analysis  under  ReceBio  is  the  EU  2020  climate  and  energy 
targets  and  the  proposed  EU  2030  package.  In  this  context,  the  baseline  and  GHG 
emission  reduction  scenarios  are  based  on  the  EU  Reference  Scenario used  in  the  2014 
EU  Impact  Assessment.  The  analysis  focuses  on  biomass  use  for  heat  and  electricity, 
hence excluding biofuels.3 

The study has used The Global Biosphere Management Model, GLOBIOM4, to assess the 
potential impacts of policy scenarios that each addresses issues of key importance as to 
the future bioenergy demand. The project has built up the analysis in a number of steps 
including: 

•  an assessment of the state of play and availability of biomass for energy in the EU 

to understand trends and use patterns (task 1); 

•  a  review  of  literature  relating  to  the  impact  of  bioenergy  on  the  environment  to 

understand critical issues and potential indicators (task 2); 

•  modelling  of  policy  scenarios  and  supporting  analysis  of  model  assumptions  to 
assess  the  consequences  in  terms  of  feedstocks  use  and  competition  between 
their  uses,  land  use  and  land  management  of  different  bioenergy  use  patterns 
(task 3); 

•  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  these  patterns  against  key  environmental 

parameters (task 4);  

1. European Commission. EU Energy, transport and GHG emissions trends to 2050. Reference scenario 2013. (2013) 
2. European Commission. Impact Assessment: Accompanying the Communication A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 
2020 up to 2030. (2014). http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2014/swd_2014_0015_en.pdf - see p. 24 for 
details of reference scenario and p. 62 for details of biomass for energy purposes. 
3. The consideration of changes in biofuel demand is outside the scope of ReceBio and as such has not been specifically analysed within the study. 
However, feedstock used for the production of biofuels for the transport sector is included in the model in accordance to the levels stemming from 
the relevant scenarios of the 2014 IA Report. 
4. http://www.globiom.org 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        10 

 
 
                                                 
•  analysis  of  three  country  case  examples  to  understand  the  emerging  trends  in 
policy and use of biomass and how these compare with model outputs (task 5). 

This final report gives an overview of the scenario modelling results and topics that have 
been produced and analysed during the project. Reports for each Task are published as 
individual reports, and can be found at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/studies_en.htm.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
MODELLING APPROACH AND FRAMING OF THE STUDY 

GLOBIOM is a global model of the forest and agricultural sectors, where the supply side 
of the model is built-up from the bottom (land cover, land use, management systems) to 
the top (production/markets). The GLOBIOM model has a long history of publication5 and 
has  previously  been  used  in  several  European  assessments6.  The  model  computes 
market  equilibrium  for  agricultural  and  forest  products  by  allocating  land  use  among 
production activities to maximise the sum of producer and consumer surplus, subject to 
resource, technological and policy constraints. The level of production in a given area is 
determined  by  the  agricultural  or  forestry  productivity  in  that  area  (dependent  on 
suitability  and  management),  by  market  prices  (reflecting  the  level  of  supply  and 
demand),  and  by  the  conditions  and  cost  associated  to  conversion  of  the  land,  to 
expansion  of  the  production  and,  when  relevant,  to  international  market  access.  Trade 
flows  are  computed  endogenously in  GLOBIOM,  following  a  spatial  equilibrium  approach 
so that bilateral trade flows between individual regions can be traced for the whole range 
of the traded commodities. For further information concerning the biomass feedstock and 
end use categories as considered within the GLOBIOM model, see Box 1.  

The  following  modelling  features  are  reflected  in  the  GLOBIOM  integrated  framework 
used for this particular project: 

•  As  the  focus  of  the  project  is  to  assess  the  potential  impact  of  increasing 
bioenergy  demand,  the  project  makes  no  attempt  to  estimate  future  bioenergy 
demand  levels  and  all  bioenergy  demand  projections  are  exogenously  defined. 
They  stem  from  PRIMES  and  POLES  modelling  results  developed  for  previous 
Commission  work.  GLOBIOM  uses  these  bioenergy  demand  projections  as 
exogenous  inputs,  they  always  have  to  be  fulfilled,  even  if  it  reduces  the 
availability of biomass resources for other purposes.  

•  The  PRIMES  estimates  of  bioenergy  demand  related  to  the  use  of  wood  from 
forests,  SRC  and  industrial  by-products  is,  within  the  ReceBio  modelling, 
expressed  as  a  single  total  demand  (and  not  as  feedstock  specific  demands). 
Where  technically  feasible,  full  substitution  between  the  use  of  wood,  SRC,  and 
forest  based  industrial  by-products  is  considered.  While  this  demand  must  be 
fulfilled,  the  model  decides,  based  on  the  assumptions  applied  concerning  costs 
and potentials, which feedstocks are the most appropriate to be used to fulfil the 
overall  bioenergy.  As  a  result,  further  disaggregation  regarding  the  sources, 
feedstocks and land use impacts is possible as compared to previous work.  

•  There  is  no  feedback  from  price  signals  of  feedstocks  upon  total  bioenergy 
demand  i.e.  increases  in  bioenergy  use  may  well  push  up  prices  for  feedstocks, 
however,  this  will  not  feedback  to  reduce  demand  for  bioenergy  (over  other 
energy  technologies).  The  demand  of  food  and  feed  commodities  is  on  the  other 
hand price elastic and therefore changes depending on consumers’ willingness to 
pay. Indeed, in this exercise, we are interested in the consequences of delivering 
a  given  bioenergy  level  and  this  is,  therefore,  fixed  at  a  certain  level  for  each 
scenario.  

•  During the modelling, change in GHG emissions and removals due to increased or 
reduced biomass demand linked to land use and land use change (LULUCF) is not 
accounted  for  in  the  efforts  needed  for  reaching  an  overall  EU  GHG  emission 
reduction  target  for  each  scenario.  Therefore,  increasing  or  decreasing  forest 
carbon  stocks  in  relation  to  the  forest  management  levels  are  not  reflected  back 
to the bioenergy demand, however, GHG consequences are analysed as outputs of 
the study.   

5. See Havlík, P., Valin, H., Herrero, M., Obersteiner, M., Schmid, E., Rufino, M.C., Mosnier, A., Thornton, P.K., Böttcher, H., Conant, R.T., Frank, 
S., Fritz, S., Fuss, S., Kraxner, F., Notenbaert, A., 2014. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 
111, 3709–3714. 
6. See EC, (2013). EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions Trends to 2050: Reference Scenario 2013. European Commission Directorate-
General for Energy, DG Climate Action and DG Mobility and Transport., Brussels, p. 168. and EC, (2014). A policy framework for climate and 
energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. European Commission, Brussels, p. 18. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        12 

 
 
                                                 
•  The starting year of the assessment is that of the year 2000, and the potential 

impact of bioenergy demand is being assessed until 2050. Bioenergy demand and 
model outcome are presented on a ten-year basis. 

The  results  of  the  scenarios  are  analysed  in  terms  of  feedstocks  use  and  competition 
between  their  uses,  focusing  on  the  observed  results  for  the  time  period  from  2010  to 
2030 and further to 2050. The main interest is on the wood biomass used  for heat and 
electricity production, and the competition between the material and energy use of wood 
within the EU. More specifically, the results assess changes and impacts on: 

•  EU land use development 

•  Forest harvest levels within the EU 

•  Development of short rotation coppices for energy production in the EU 

•  Use of wood biomass for material and energy production, and production of semi-
finished  forest  products  (sawnwood,  plywood,  fiber-  and  particleboards,  wood 
pulp) 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        13 

 
 
 
 
 
Box  1  –  Introduction  to  the  feedstock  and  end  use  categories  used  within 
ReceBio 

This  box  gives  a  short  description  of  the  central  feedstocks  and  end  use  categories  considered  in 
the  project.  This  is  not  an  exhaustive  list  of  the  biomass  types  considered  within  the  project,  but 
instead gives an overview of the main categories where central project results are reflected. 

Forest  based  industries  –  the  project  covers  production  of  chemical  and  mechanical  pulp, 
sawnwood, plywood, fibre- and particleboard (both referred to as particleboard), and wood pellets. 
The initial production of commodities within GLOBIOM is based on the production quantities in the 
year  2000  as  of  FAOSTAT.  In  terms  of  the  representation  of  the  paper  industrial  sector,  the 
GLOBIOM  model  stops  at  the  representation  of  the  production  and  consumption  of  chemical  and 
mechanical  pulp.  The  full  variety  of  paper  grades  are  as  such  not  represented  or  individually 
analysed within this study.  

Firewood – wood used as fuel for cooking, heating and power production in a non-industrial scale 
(as  household  fuelwood).  This  type  of  wood  use  for  energy  is  a  large  driver  for  forest  harvests 
within  the  EU  as  well  as  globally.  However,  the  statistics  are  highly  uncertain.  In  this  project, 
FAOSTAT estimates of firewood within the EU were refined using data from national statistics and 
Joint Wood Energy Enquiry (JWEE). For rest of the world, FAOSTAT statistics were used. 

Roundwood for energy  –  in  this  project,  we  differentiate direct  combustion of  industrial-quality 
roundwood  from  firewood.  Roundwood  for  energy  is  defined  in  this  project  as  roundwood  of 
sufficient quality and dimension to be used for material production, but is instead used directly for 
energy  production  in  small  or  large  conversion  facilities.  In  GLOBIOM,  direct  competition  is 
modelled  between  roundwood  used  for  energy  and  material  production  (mostly  for  pulp  and 
particleboard  production).  Initially  (as  of  2010),  it  is  assumed  that  no  roundwood  is  being  used 
directly for energy in EU28.  

Wood  pellets  -  Wood  pellets  are  refined  wood  fuels  that  are  mostly  made  of  industrial  by-
products,  such  as  wood  chips,  sawdust  and/or  shavings.  In  the  ReceBio  project,  wood  pellets 
produced  within  the  EU  are  included  within  industrial  residues.  EU  imports  of  wood  pellets, 
however, are differentiated as a separate feedstock, to facilitate trade analysis. EU trade of wood 
pellets as of 2010 is based on EUROSTAT and Indufor data. 

Industrial by-products – By-products and residues of the mechanical wood-processing industry, 
including  chips,  sawdust,  shavings,  trimmings  and  bark.  They  are  an  important  raw  materials  for 
pulp, panel and pellet production, and used also as such for bioenergy. 

Recycled wood – all kinds of wood material which, at the end of its life cycle, is made available 
for re-use or recycling. Re-use can be either for material purposes or energy production. This group 
mainly  includes  used  packaging  materials,  wood  from  demolition  projects,  and  unused  or  scrap 
building  wood.  The  availability  and  consumption  estimates  for  2010  are  based  on  collected  data 
from JWEE, EPF, COST 31, Wood Recyclers’ Association UK, BAV Germany, and Indufor data.  

Short  rotation  coppice  (SRC)  –  tree  plantations  (mostly  poplar  and  willow)  established  and 
managed  under  an  intensive,  short  rotation  regime  on  agricultural  land.  In  ReceBio,  the  land 
availability for SRC and other ligno-cellulosic biomass (miscanthus, reed canary grass) is based on 
CORINE/PELCOM (2000) land cover estimates, and the same as in the 2014 IA report.  

Harvests – in the ReceBio project, harvests refer to removal of biomass from forests or SRC.  

Forest residues  –  leftover  branches,  stumps  and stem tops  from logging operations  that  can  be 
used for bioenergy. In this project, the estimated levels for forest residue harvests are based on a 
compilation of national statistics and JWEE reporting.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        14 

 
 
 
 
 
ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - METHODOLOGY 

In earlier tasks  of the  project a list of potential indicators had been  defined that can be 
used  to  assess  environmental  impacts  of  increased  biomass  use.  Selected  indicators 
related to GHG emissions and removals, potential environmental impacts on biodiversity, 
soil and water were translated into GLOBIOM model variables. The indicators are used to 
assess model output and to detect potential impacts of changes in biomass use between 
different  scenarios  in  EU28  and  Rest  of  the  World  (RoW).  The  changes  in  scenario 
assumptions  are  expected  to  affect  indicators  differently.  For  further  information 
concerning methodology used for the assessing the impact of environmental constraints, 
see Box 8.  

The  main  indicators  for  assessing  environmental  impacts  of  biomass  use  in  EU28  in 
different policy scenarios are derived from the following model output variables: 

•  Land  use  (addressing  the  model  variables  Forest  area,  including  the  categories 
Afforestation,  Used  Forest,  Unused  Forest;  Area  of  Deforestation;  Area  of 
Cropland,  including  the  category  Short  Rotation  Coppice;  Area  of  Grazing  land; 
Area  of  other  natural  land)  (see  Box  2  for  further  information  concerning  the 
various land use categories).  

•  Biodiversity  (addressing  the  model  variables  Unused  forest  area;  Unused  forest 
converted  to  other  land  use;  Land  with  high  biodiversity  value  (HBV);  Forest 
rotation period. 

•  Greenhouse  Gases  (addressing  the  model  variables  Emissions  from  agriculture 
and  livestock;  Emissions  from  forest  activities  and  Harvested  Wood  Products; 
Total  net  land  use  emissions)  (see  Box  7  for  further  information  concerning  the 
emission categories as covered by the assessment) 

•  Water  and  soil  (addressing  the  model  variables  Water  used  for  agriculture; 

Irrigation area; Forest area with steep slopes) 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        15 

 
 
 
 
 
Box 2 – Introduction to land use categories used in ReceBio 

Within this box some land use categories and their features under the models GLOBIOM/G4M, are 
defined. These serve as the basis for establishing environmental indicators, 

Forest  -  The  FAO  FRA  20107  definition  is  used  when  classifying  land  as  forest.  Forest  that  is  not 
protected is considered as potential production forest. The model allocates harvests to this area so 
that  the  projected  demand  for  wood  for  material  and  energy  purposes  will  be  satisfied.  These 
forests include natural and semi-natural forests, as well as forest plantations. 

Used forest - Forests that are used in a certain period to meet the wood demand are modelled to 
be  managed  for  woody  biomass  production.  This  implies  a  certain  rotation  time,  thinning  events 
and final harvest. Examples of used forests are: 
- A forest that is actively managed (through thinning or clearcut activities etc.) on a regular basis 
and the wood is collected for subsistence use or to be sold on markets. 
-  A  forest  used  on  a  regular  basis  for  collection  of  firewood  for  subsistence  use  or  to  be  sold  on 
markets. 
-  A  forest  concession  or  community  forest  used  for collection  of  wood  for  export  and/or  domestic 
markets. 

Unused forest  –  Forests that  currently  do  not  contribute to  wood  supply  (for  economic  reasons) 
as  determined  by  the  model.  However,  these  forests  may  still  be  a  source  for  collection  and 
production of non-wood goods (e.g. food, wild game, ornimental plants). 

Area  classified  as  afforestation  -  Land  that  has  been  converted  to  forest  after  the  year  2000 
(the start of the model run). All new forests established through afforestation are considered to be 
used for wood supply. 

Agricultural land – Includes cropland, grazing land, short rotation coppice and other natural land.  

Cropland - Land used for crop production. This also includes set-aside areas declared as cropland, 
but  not  currently  used  for  crop  harvesting  (e.g.  fallow  land).  This  land  category  also  includes 
annual and perennial lignocellulosic plants (e.g. miscanthus and switchgrass) that are increasingly 
used for biofuel production as well as Short Rotation Coppice.  

Grazing  land  –  Pasture  lands  used  for  ruminant  grazing.  It  does  not  include  unused  natural 
grasslands.  

Other  natural  vegetation  or  other  natural  land  –  Other  natural  land  is  a  residual  land  use 
category used in the modelling to represent land that does not fall under the other used land use 
categories.  It  contains  a  mixture  of  herbaceous  vegetation,  abandoned  cropland  (if  not  fallow), 
grassland  not  being  used,  natural  grassland,  and  marginal  land.  However,  the  category  does  not 
include settlements, wetlands, bare and artificial areas. 

Protected  forest  areas  -  Protected  forest  areas  (as  defined  by  WDPA  Consortium  2004)  are 
delineated  outside  from  the  analysis  and  no  conversion  or  use  is  assumed.  Other  conservation 
initiatives  (e.g.  Natura  2000,  which  are  often  not  reserves  but  where  sustainable  management  is 
allowed) and local protection initiatives are not considered within the analysis. 

Areas of high biodiversity value (HBV) – Within the model we consider HBV areas based on the 
Carbon and Biodiversity Atlas by WCMC8. This atlas presents a set of maps of different biodiversity 
hot  spots.  In  this  study,  we  assume  that  where  at  least  three  maps  of  biodiversity  hot  spots  of 
species groups (e.g. birds, mammals) overlap, land is considered to be of high biodiversity value. 
These areas are then overlaid with the land use information in GLOBIOM. HBV areas can be found 
on cropland, grazing land, used and unused forests and other natural land. 

7. FAO 2010: Global Forest Resources Assessment  2010. Main report. United Nations Food  and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. p. 378 
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf 
8. http://www.unep.org/pdf/carbon_biodiversity.pdf 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
THE BASELINE SCENARIO – A STARTING POINT FOR ASSESSMENT 

The basis for the baseline scenario examined in ReceBio is ‘EU Reference Scenario’ of the 
2014  IA  Report.  The  goal  of  the  baseline  scenario  is  to  depict  a  future  with  continued 
increasing  global  population, 
including 
consideration to EU’s economic downturn, and an overall long term increase of fossil fuel 
import prices to EU. More specifically, it is assumed that import prices of fossil fuels will 
increase by 50% or more in the period of 2010-2030, in line with projections from world 
energy  system  modelling  exercises.  Moreover,  the  scenario  portrays  a  future  in  which 
consumption  patterns  of  food,  fibre,  and  fuels  continue  to  evolve  over  time  following 
current trends.  

intermediate  economic  developments 

The baseline scenario also considers the same range of policy targets as assumed for the 
‘EU  Reference  Scenario’.  It  takes  into  account  a  broad  range  of  policy  commitments, 
currently  implemented  policies,  legislations  and  targets  that  have  been  announced  by 
countries  and  adopted  by  late  spring  2012.  Key  policies  for  the  EU  that  are  considered 
include  the  EU  ETS  Directive  (2009/29/EC),  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive 
(2009/28/EC),  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (2001/27/EU),  and  GHG  Effort  Sharing 
decision (No 406/2009/EC). From 2020 onwards, no changes in policies are assumed and 
no new policies are considered.  

Resulting  from  these  policies,  and  as  estimated  for  the  ‘EU  Reference  Scenario’, 
renewable  energy  share  (RES)  in  the  EU28  would  account  for  a  24.4%  of  gross  final 
energy consumption by 2030, and 28.7% in 2050. Bioenergy plays an important role in 
this  trend  and  total  bioenergy  production  from  biomass  and  waste  increases  from  85 
Mtoe  in  2005  to  124  Mtoe  in  2010,  150  Mtoe  in  2020,  date  after  which  bioenergy 
production increases at a slower pace until 2050 (to 153 Mtoe to 2030, and 164 Mtoe as 
in 2050)1. 

The ReceBio Baseline Scenario is based on the same underlying assumptions concerning 
socio-economic  growth,  statistical  data,  and  policy  targets  as  for  the  ‘EU  Reference 
Scenario’.  It  assumed  the  same  total  bioenergy  demand  as  that  for  the  ‘EU  Reference 
Scenario’.  However,  under  the  ReceBio  Baseline  Scenario  certain  assumptions  made  in 
the  ‘EU  Reference  Scenario’  have  been  further  developed  to  take  account  of  additional 
information  identified  and  assessed  within  the  project  and  to  enable  more  effective 
assessment of bioenergy demand. The key differences are set out below:  

Data  concerning  wood-based  industries,  as  collected  in  the  state  of  play  assessment 
(Task  1),  has  been  integrated  within  the  modelling  framework.  This  allows  for  more 
accurate representation of these industries as well as the biomass sources being used for 
the production of the various woody commodities.  

Collection and consumption of particular wood biomass resources has also been updated 
taking into account latest available data as collected with Task 1. In particular, firewood 
(household  fuelwood)  consumption, collecting of  forest  residues  (e.g.  leftover  branches, 
stumps and stem tops from logging operations), and recycled wood (e.g. wood from used 
packaging  material,  scrap  timber  from  building  sites,  wood  from  demolition  projects) 
used for production of wood based panels and/or energy purposes. 

International  trade  of  primary  woody  products,  namely  chips  for  material  use,  pellets, 
and roundwood has also been updated within the project based on data as available and 
collected within the framework of the project. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        17 

 
 
 
 
Key results and trends in the Baseline scenario 

The  baseline  scenario  shows  a  clear  increase  in  the  use  of  wood  up  to  2050,  for  both 
material and energy purposes in the EU. The increased demand for wood biomass is seen 
to lead to an intensification in the use of forests in the EU28. There is an expansion in the 
area of used forest in Europe. There is also a significant expansion in the use of SRC both 
in terms of volume consumed and area of land devoted to production. These expansions 
in used forestry and land devoted to SRC lead to a decline in the area of unused forest 
(most  notably  leading  up  to  2050)  and  a  more  significant  decline  in  the  area  of  ‘other 
natural  land’.  These  trends  of  intensification  of  land  use  and  land  use  change  are  also 
observed in the rest of the world (outside the EU).  

Key results and trends identified in the baseline analysis are set out below. 

Changes in wood flows and the use of bioenergy feedstocks 

The baseline scenario projects a clear increase in the use of wood for both material and 
energy  from  the  2010  levels.  Material  use  of  wood  is  increasing  over  time,  driven  by 
socio-economic  development  and  export  of  semi-finished  wood  products.  The  overall 
consumption of wood for energy is estimated  to  expand from 306  million m3 in 2010 to 
419 million m3 in 2050. This includes black liquor and  other industrial by-products used 
for  energy,  as  well  as  firewood,  forest  residues,  recycled  wood,  imported  wood  pellets 
and SRC produced for energy. In terms of the comparative uses of wood, the proportion 
of total wood consumption going to energy use increases between 2010 (36%) and 2050 
(38%). It should be noted, however, that the consumption level for material use of wood 
also grows over the same period (from 535 to 686 million m3, some of which will become 
residues and by-products, and be used for energy) although not as sharply as the wood 
to energy consumption (as indicated by the shift in proportions).  

Figure 1 illustrates the flow of wood biomass between the different wood using industries 
in  the  EU.  The  figure  provides  an  overview  of  the  flow  of  wood  in  the  Baseline  scenario 
for the years 2010, 2030, and 2050. Analysis of these figures shows clear growth in the 
forest-based  industries  producing  materials,  driven  by  increasing  population  and  GDP 
development.  This  growth  is  seen  in  all  material  production  (sawnwood,  wood-based 
panels  and  pulp  production).  The  increased  material  production  also  leads  to  an 
increased production of industrial residues and by-products used for energy purposes.  

The  flow charts highlight that a significant amount of wood  will be required for meeting 
the bioenergy demand. A large part of this is sourced from SRC, which increases from a 
negligible  amount  in  2010  to  60  million  m3  in  2050.  By-products  of  the  material-
producing  industries  are  also  a  notable  source  of  biomass  for  energy.  In  addition,  the 
net-import  of  wood  pellets  is  expected  to  increase  from  10  Mm3  in  2010  to  23  Mm3  by 
2050. USA and Canada are still foreseen as major trading partners for pellets, but Latin 
America, the former USSR, and South-East Asia are also expected to develop into major 
players on this front. Contrary to other sources of wood biomass for energy, the amount 
of  firewood  is  estimated  to  decrease  within  EU28,  driven  by  an  expected  shift  from 
domestic  to  district  heating  (this  development  is  modelled  in  line  with  estimates  from 
PRIMES). 

Agricultural  residues  and  biogenic  waste  are  an  important  source  of  bioenergy.  The 
increasing use of these feedstocks for energy purposes is within this project fully in line 
with that of the 2014 IA report. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        18 

 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Flow of wood in the EU in the Baseline scenario, in million m3 wood/solid wood equivalent. Note that 
the volumes of particleboard, mechanical and chemical pulp, and black liquor reflect the amount of wood in the 
products, not the actual material yield.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Harvest rate and forestry production 

In the baseline scenario, the total forest harvest level in EU increases clearly, from 556 
million  m3  in  2010  to  616  million  m3  in  2030  and  648  million  m3  in  2050.  In  particular 
harvests  for  material  production,  especially  sawlogs,  show  a  steadily  increasing  trend, 
and this expanding trend appears to drive overall harvest level. Harvests for energy stay 
on a more stable level until 2030. After 2030, harvest levels for energy actually decrease 
(from  158  to  143  million  m3).  The  key  driver  for  this  decrease  is  the  decreasing  use  of 
firewood.  In  addition,  increasing  import  of  wood  pellets  and  the  expansion  in  SRC  for 
energy purposes replace harvested wood from forests for energy. Overall, this draws also 
the total harvest level downwards, causing a slightly slower increase of the total harvest 
level after 2030 than in the prior two decades.  

As  shown  in  Table  1,  the  baseline  results  for  2010  are  on  the  same  overall level  as  the 
corresponding  levels  reported  by  the  EUWood  study9  and  by  Indufor10.  Discrepancies 
between the different studies can largely be attributed to uncertainty/lack of reliable EU 
statistics relating to household fuelwood use. 

Table 1. Comparison of the project results and reference literature on wood consumption in the EU28, divided 
into material and energy uses. 

Study 

EUWood 
2010 

Indufor 
2011 

ReceBio Baseline 
2030 

2010 

Total Wood Consumption 
  Total Material Use* 
  Wood Products Industry** 
  Pulp and Paper 
  Pulp 
  Total Energy Use, excl. SRC 
  Wood products industry side 
streams*** 
  Wood used primarily for 
energy**** 
Energy Biomass from SRC 
Energy use, % 
Material use, % 

825 
457 
314 

143 
368 

942 
649 
308 
341 

293 
150 

841 
535 
367 

162 
306 
155 

1004 
613 
436 

172 
346 
188 

2050 
Million m3 
1106 
686 
498 

182 
359 
216 

143 

151 

158 

143 

45% 
55% 

31% 
69% 

0 
36% 
64% 

44 
39% 
61% 

60 
38% 
62% 

Note that this table describes the input volumes for wood-using industries. This means that some of the wood biomass is counted both within 
“Total Material Use” and “Total Energy Use”, because by-products of the material industries can be used in the production of other materials (pulp 
and/or particleboards), or for energy. This is a common way of accounting for wood use found in the literature, but partial double-counting makes 
it impossible to compare these numbers with actual harvest volumes. The flowcharts used in this report (e.g. Figure 4) bypass this problem by 
showing the actual wood biomass flows through the industries. 
*In ReceBio: Sawmill and board industries, pulp production, and recycled wood used for material 
**In ReceBio: Sawmill and board industries 
***In ReceBio: Sawdust, wood chips, bark and black liquor used for energy, and recycled wood 
****In ReceBio: fuelwood, forest residues, industrial-quality roundwood used directly for energy, imported pellets. 

9. See Mantau et al. 2010. Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests. EUWood final report. Project: Call for tenders No. 
TREN/D2/491-2008. 
10. See Indufor 2011. Study on the Wood Raw Material Supply and Demand for the EU Wood-processing Industries. Final report. European 
Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate General. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        20 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
KEY RESULTS FOR SCENARIOS WITH VARYING EU BIOENERGY DEMAND 

The  baseline  selected  for  this  study  forms  a  point  of  comparison  in  terms  of 
understanding  different  evolutions  in  bioenergy  use.  Within  ReceBio,  in  addition  to  the 
baseline, four scenarios modelling different potential evolutions in the bioenergy demand 
profiles and trade were set out. These scenarios are: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  –  that  GHG40/EE  scenario  from  the  2014  IA 
Report. This scenario delivers 40% GHG emissions reduction in the EU by 2030 as 
compared  to  1990,  together  with  a  26.4%  share  of  renewable  sources  in  total 
energy consumption and total energy savings of 29.3% by 2030 (as compared to 
2007  projection  for  2030).  The  scenario  also  delivers  a  2050  GHG  emission 
reduction target of 80 % reduction of emissions with respect to the 1990 emission 
level. Further, energy savings are estimated to develop in line with the GHG40/EE 
scenario,  and  are  -29.3%  in  2030  compared  to  the  2007  baseline  projections, 
leading  to  lower  demand  for  biomass  for  energy  as  of  2030  than  that  of  the 
ReceBio baseline scenario;  

the  Constant  Bioenergy  Scenario  –  that  uses  the  GHG40/EE  as  a  basis  but  fixes 
levels  of  bioenergy  demand  for  the  EU  at  2020  between  2020  and  2050,  i.e. 
demonstrating  consequences  of  a  stabilised  bioenergy  demand.  Bioenergy 
demand as of 2020 for the Constant Bioenergy Scenarios is lower than that in the 
baseline scenario for 2020, as a result of the implementation of energy efficiency 
measures that follow the development of the GHG40/EE scenario until 2020; 

the Increased Rest of the World Demand scenario – that assumes the GHG40/EE 
pattern of bioenergy demand for the EU, plus increased demand for bioenergy in 
the  rest  of  the  world,  based  on  the  GECO  Global  Mitigation  Scenario11  recently 
published by the European Commission; and  

the  Increased  EU  Biomass  Import  Scenario  –  that  assumes  the  GHG40/EE  levels 
of  bioenergy  demand  for  the  EU  but  an  enhanced  level  of  biomass  imports 
modelled through decreased trade costs between the EU and Rest of the World for 
feedstocks for energy and material use. 

This  section  of  the  final  report  will  primarily  focus  on  the  results  for  the  EU  Emission 
Reduction scenario and associated consequences; the most important results from other 
scenarios under ReceBio are also presented here (see Box 4, 5, and 6). The full project 
results are published as five individual task reports, and can be retrieved at:   
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/studies_en.htm 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  absolute  energy  consumption  from  renewable  sources  in 
2030  is  slightly  lower  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  than  in  the  EU  Reference 
Scenario.  This  is  due  to  energy  efficiency  policies  that  contribute  to  reducing  overall 
energy  demand  in  the  GHG40/EE  scenario.  Total  bioenergy  demand  in  the  EU  follows  a 
similar pattern, reaching a level of 166 Mtoe in 2030 under the GHG40/EE as compared 
to  178  Mtoe  in  the  EU  Reference  Scenario.  After  2030,  however,  bioenergy  demand 
increases  in  the  GHG40/EE  scenario  at  a  much  higher  rate  than  in  the  EU  Reference 
Scenario.  The  increase  in  bioenergy  demand  after  2030  in  the  GHG40/EE  scenario  is 
mainly  driven  by  the  imposed  80%  GHG  reduction  target  by  2050  with  respect  to  the 
1990 emission level.   

Key results and trends – understanding different patterns of bioenergy demand 

The  development  seen  in  the  Baseline  scenario  is  found  to  be  accentuated  in  the  EU 
Emission  Reduction  scenario  up  to  2050.  In  this  scenario,  the  development  of  biomass 
use  follows a trend to  a large  extent similar to that  of the baseline scenario until 2030. 
Thereafter,  the  results  show  a  considerable  increase  in  the  use  of  imported  pellets  (52 

11. This scenario depicts a development wherein joint global efforts are taken to reduce GHG emissions beyond 2020 in line with ambitions to 
keep global warming below 2°C. Globally, the current use of biomass in the energy sector represents about 50 EJ/yr, which develops in 2050 to 
more than double in the Baseline Scenario and triples to 150 EJ/yr in the Global Mitigation Scenario. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        21 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Mm3  in  2050,  double  to  that  in  the  Baseline),  SRC  (161  Mm3  in  2050,  almost  triple 
compared  to  Baseline),  and,  additionally,  we  see  also  large  quantities  of  roundwood  (of 
pulpwood  quality  and  dimensions)  directly  being  used  for  bioenergy  production  (78 
million  m3  in  2050).  The  increased  use  of  biomass  for  energy  has  a  direct  impact  on 
forest  harvests,  which  are  more  than  700  million  m3  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction 
scenario in 2050, almost a 9% increase when compared to the  Baseline results for that 
year (Figure 2). 

Figure  2.  The wood flows in  the EU28 in 2050 in the baseline and EU Emission Reduction scenarios, in Mm3 
solid wood equivalent. Note that the volumes of particleboard, mechanical and chemical pulp, and black liquor 
reflect the amount of wood in the products, not the actual material yield. 

Harvest rate and forestry production 

The forest harvests in the EU Emission Reduction scenario increase over time. Until 2030 
harvest  levels  are  slightly  lower  than  those  seen  in  the  baseline,  associated  with  the 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
reduced  demand  for  energy  resulting  from  higher  effort  in  terms  of  energy  efficiency; 
from 2030 onwards, harvest levels increase above and beyond the Baseline.  

Up until 2030, use of wood for material purposes is expected to be the major driver for 
the increasing forest harvests in the EU (Figure 3). This development has its roots partly 
in  the  strong  interrelationship  between  material  and  energy  uses  of  wood;  increasing 
material  use  of  wood  also  provides  more  biomass  for  energy  through  industrial  by-
products.  The  increase  in  material  production,  and  associated  by-products,  is  almost 
enough  to  satisfy  the  bioenergy  demand  until  2030  (together  with  increasing  SRC  and 
pellet imports).  

Beyond 2030 high bioenergy demand under the Emission Reduction Scenario has a clear 
impact on the overall forest harvest level. After 2030, the increasing harvests of wood for 
direct energy production is expected to become the main driving force for the increasing 
forest harvests in the EU. This development affects especially the harvest of wood that is 
of pulpwood-quality and a sufficient dimension to be used for material purposes, but that 
is  used  directly  for  energy  production.  Figure  3  highlights  the  changing  patterns  of 
harvest  and  the  associated  drivers,  comparing  the  results  from  the  Baseline  and  EU 
Emission Reduction Scenarios. 

Figure 3. Forest harvests in the baseline and the EU Emission Reduction scenario. The category “Harvests for 
direct energy use” combines harvests of forest residues, fuelwood, and pulpwood that are used for energy as 
such,  or  after  chipping  and/or  pelletization.  “Harvests  for material  use” shows  the  harvested  amount  of wood 
that is used for material production in the forest industries and production of other wood products (part of this 
volume  will  eventually  become  industrial  residue  and  be  used  as  energy  as  well).  Total  harvests  is  the 
aggregate of forest harvests for energy and material use. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 3 – Examining the role of  recycled wood and  its  relationship  with forest 
harvests 

Using more recycled wood for material production represents a potential opportunity to increase 
the resource efficiency of biomass consumption in the EU. Potential future amounts of recycled 
wood  are,  however,  difficult  to  model  due  to  data  availability.  Information  on  current  and 
historical  amounts  and  prices  are  not  fully  available  or  based  on  rough  estimates.  The  level of 
recycled wood assumed in ReceBio is therefore based on the statistics collected in the Task 1 of 
the project and assumed to stay constant throughout the projection period. 

To investigate the impacts of the assumptions made for the level of recycled wood available for 
material use, the EU Emission Reduction scenario was run with varying levels of recycled wood. 
The  amounts  of  recycled  wood  were  increased  by  20%,  40%,  100%  and  200%  by  year  2050 
from the amounts as assumed in the EU Emission Reduction scenario. The displacement impacts 
in material wood use and consequences for energy use of wood are elaborated in Figure 4. 

The  results  show  that,  when  recycled  wood  was  increased,  it  released  industrial  by-products 
from  material  (left-hand  side  of  Figure  4),  which,  consequently,  are  used  for  energy  purposes 
and  in  turn  decreased  the  use  of  pellets,  roundwood  and  SRC  for  energy  (right-hand  side  of 
Figure 4). In other words, the increasing use of recycled wood for material purposes leads to a 
decreasing use of pellets, roundwood and SRC for energy.  

Increased  wood  recycling  also  increases  the  use  of  pulpwood  in  the  material  sectors:  the 
majority  of  recycled  wood  is  used  for  particleboard  production,  and  a  certain  amount  of  virgin 
wood  is  needed  in  the  production  process  alongside  with  recycled  wood.  Most of  the  industrial 
residues  replaced  by  recycled  wood  in  material  production  will  instead  be  used  for  energy 
production.  Nevertheless,  even  when  increased  by  200%,  the  amount  of  recycled  wood  for 
material  production  is  only  3%  of  the  total  wood  biomass  used  for  material  and  energy.  As  a 
result,  the  changes  modelled  in  the  level  of  wood  recycling  were  found  not  to  have  a  notable 
impact on the forest harvest levels in the EU. 

Figure  4.  Effect  of  increasing  the  amount  of  recycled  wood  used  for  material  production  on  the  types  of 
woody biomass used for material and energy in 2050. Positive values represent an increase in the use of the 
biomass feedstock for material or energy use, while negative values represent a decreasing use of biomass 
feedstock for material or energy use. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The changing profile of biomass feedstocks use 

Analysis of the Emission Reduction scenario identifies several key trends in terms of the 
type  and  origins  of  biomass  being  used  for  energy  production.  This  includes:  the  rising 
use  of  roundwood  (specifically  pulpwood)  for  energy  production;  increasing  levels  of 
pellet  imports;  and  expanding  use  of  SRC.  These  trends  were  all  originally  noted  in  the 
baseline,  but  are  exacerbated  by  the  increasing  bioenergy  demand  seen  to  2050  under 
the  Emission  Reduction  Scenario.  When  considering  the  changes  in  feedstock  use  we 
found important to understand better both the nature  of the feedstocks being used and 
what happens if a particular feedstock is not forthcoming as anticipated by the model.  

The results from the model, for both the Baseline Scenario and to an even greater extent 
under the Emission Reduction Scenario, show a highly significant expansion in the EU in 
the use of SRC towards 2030 and 2050, rising both in volume and in surface area (from 
0.4  in  2010  to  66  million  m3  by  2050  and  from  10  000  ha  in  2010  to  3.4  million  ha  in 
2050  under  the  Baseline,  and  to  161  million  m3  and  8.9  million  ha  in  2050  in  the  EU 
Emission Reduction scenario). Rapid development of SRC in both scenarios indicates that 
satisfying a high demand of biomass for energy will rely increasingly on the development 
of SRC.  

Evidence from other studies and from discussions with experts has suggested that SRC is 
often  difficult  to  gain  acceptance  of  in  terms  of  promoting  its  expansion.  There  are 
barriers to farmers establishing SRC, which are perhaps not totally reflected in a purely 
economic model. This includes the loss of flexibility in terms of crop rotation/response to 
the  market  and  the  lack  of  income  over  the  establishment  period  of  the  crop.  As  a 
consequence, the assumptions regarding feedstock availability were investigated further 
to better understand what would occur in the absence of the SRC expansion (Figure 5). 
The results show that, if SRC would not develop as estimated in the model, a majority of 
the ‘gap’ would be taken up by increasing use of roundwood for direct combustion and by 
imported  pellets.  A  similar  analysis  for  other  feedstocks  also  shows  the  importance  of 
SRC expansion in providing for any ‘gap’ in supply were, for example, forest residues or 
pellet imports to be restricted (available in the Task 3 report). 

Figure 5. The effects of a reduction in one type of feedstock on the use of other wood biomass for energy in 
2050.  In  this  analysis  the  levels  of  each  feedstock  category  seen  in  2050  under  the  Emission  Reduction 
Scenario  were  progressively  reduced  by  between  5  and  40  per  cent  to  understand  the  consequences  of 
reducing a specific feedstock stream and the feedstocks that might plug the ‘gap’ in supply generated. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        25 

 
 
 
 
 
Box 4 – What is the Impact on Feedstock Use of Increased Imports of Biomass? 

The increased EU Biomass Import scenario investigated the impact of increasing the EU reliance on 
imported biomass feedstocks to EU from the Rest of the World. The scenario as such assesses how 
the pressure on domestic production would react to increasing EU reliance on imported biomass. In 
this  scenario,  the  trade  cost  of  biomass  feedstocks  for  energy  and  material  purposes  was 
decreased by roughly 12% for the year 2030, and 32%12 for 2050. Under the EU Biomass Import 
Scenario the EU net import of pellets grows to 218 Mm3 in 2050 (more than four times the amount 
foreseen  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario),  and  the  net  import  of  roundwood  grows  to  71 
Mm3 by 2050 (a 22% increase when compared to the EU Emission Reduction scenario).  

Recently,  EU  imports  of  wood  pellets  from  North  America,  especially  the  USA,  have  increased 
considerably. This development is seen to continue in the ReceBio scenarios, but further expansion 
in pellet demand seen under the EU Biomass Import scenario suggests increasing EU pellet imports 
also  from  other  parts  of  the  world,  especially  from  Canada,  Latin  America  and  South-East  Asia. 
Following the growth of pellets into a major biomass feedstock for energy, domestic harvests in the 
EU will only increase modestly over time in this scenario. As a direct effect of the increased pellet 
imports, the EU forest harvest level decreases and is only 624 Mm3 in 2050, an 11% decrease from 
the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  and  a  3.7%  decrease  from  the  Baseline  scenario.  A  further 
consequence  is  that  the  material  production  level  in  the  EU  also  grows  slightly  (especially 
particleboard and chemical pulp production). 

Box 5 – What if the bioenergy demand stabilises after 2020? 

To  investigate  development  where  no  further  action  for  promoting  the  development  of  the 
bioenergy  sector  comes  into  play  after  2020,  a  scenario  referred  to  as  the  Constant  Bioenergy 
Demand  scenario  was  constructed.  In  this  scenario,  the  bioenergy  demand  in  EU28  follows  the 
same  trend  as  the other  scenarios  until  2020  and  stays  constant  thereafter.  This  implies  that the 
total  energy  production  from  biomass  and  waste  for  EU28  stays  constant  after  2020  at  the 
approximate level of 150 Mtoe. 

As the population and GDP development is still projected to continue under the Constant Scenario 
as  in  Baseline,  the  main  driver  for  the  consumption  of  woody  products  is  the  same  between  the 
scenarios  and  there  are  only  small  differences  between  this  scenario  and  the  Baseline  on  the 
material  production  side.  There  is,  however,  a  clear  difference  in  the  composition  of  feedstocks 
used  for  energy  production.  Most  importantly,  pressure  to  produce  SRC  for  energy  is  significantly 
reduced.  Meeting  bioenergy  demand  up  to  2020  requires  an  increase  in  the  production  of  SRC, 
thereafter  the  bioenergy  demand  can  be  increasingly  satisfied  through  other  feedstocks.  As  for 
SRC,  pellet  imports  also  increase  until  2020,  but  remain  almost  constant  thereafter.  In  this 
scenario,  no  roundwood  of  sufficient  quality  and  dimensions  to  be  used  for material  production  is 
projected to be used directly for bio-energy purposes.  

The stagnation in the heat and power sector in terms of bioenergy use under  Constant Bioenergy 
Demand  scenario  results  in  a  higher  level  of  fuelwood  used  for  domestic  heating  than  in  the 
Baseline.  Overall,  the  harvest  level  in  the  EU  in  2050  is  15  million  m3  (2.3%)  lower  than  in  the 
Baseline. When compared to the Baseline scenario under the Constant Bioenergy Demand scenario 
there  is  more  particleboard  production  and  less  sawnwood  production.  This  can  be  explained  as 
follows: 

• 

• 

the demand for industrial by-products from sawmills (chips and sawdust) for bioenergy 
production is lower reducing sawmill profitability and leading to lower levels of production; 
the drop in bioenergy demand for the chip and sawdust by-products causes prices to drop 
making particleboard production, utilising these feedstocks, more profitable.  

12. The levels were chosen so that they incur a notable change in trade patterns compared to the Baseline scenario, while still representing a 
plausible change in costs. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Box 6 – The impact of expanding global demand for bioenergy 

In  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario,  EU  imports  of  both  roundwood  and  wood  pellets  increase 
notably.  From  this  follows  that  the  availability  of  imported  feedstocks  is  increasingly  dependent 
also  on  the  demand  for  biomass  outside  of  the  EU.  The  imports  may  not  materialize  if  countries 
outside  of  EU  are  increasingly  reliant  on  their  own  biomass  sources  to  fulfil  their  own  increasing 
bioenergy  demand.  This  development  was  assessed  in  the  "Increased  Rest  of  the  World  (RoW) 
Bioenergy  Demand"  scenario,  wherein  joint  global  efforts  to  reduce  GHG  emissions  beyond  2020 
were assumed, thereby enhancing the development of the bioenergy sector for the RoW. In the EU, 
the  bioenergy  increase  was  modelled  similarly  to  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario. 
Consequently, this scenario depicts a situation where EU may not be able to import as much of the 
biomass feedstocks as in the other scenarios. 

The results show that, with an increased RoW bioenergy demand, net EU import of wood pellets is 
only 39 million m3 in 2050, 25% less than in the EU Emission Reduction scenario. In addition, also 
EU roundwood imports decrease by more than 20%. This puts more pressure to the development 
of the SRC sector in the EU: in this scenario, the production of SRC in the EU28 is the highest of all 
scenarios  at  172  million  m3  in  2050  (a  7%  increase  to  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario). 
Material production levels stay at almost the same level as in the EU Emission Reduction scenario. 
However,  as  EU  roundwood  imports  decrease,  the  domestic  forest  harvest  level  increases  to  718 
million  m3  in  2050  (14  Mm3  higher  than  in  the  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario,  and  162  Mm3,  or 
29%, higher than in 2010). 

There  are  significant  impacts  on  land  use  and  environmental  factors  as  a  consequence  of 
expanding  rest  of  the  world  demand  for  bioenergy  in  combination  with  that  of  the  EU28.  These 
impacts on land use change and environmental indicators are discussed below, and in more detail 
in the Task 4 report.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
LAND USE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Land use change 

The key changes in land use already under the Baseline scenario are an increase in the 
area  of  cropland  and  used  forest  in  the  EU,  driven  to  some  degree  by  the  increased 
demand  for  SRC  and  increased  forest  harvest  level,  respectively  (Figure  6).  Following 
this development, we see a decline in the area of unused forest and, most significantly, 
other  natural  land.  These  trends  are  seen  to  be  enhanced  further  under  the  Emission 
Reduction scenario with, by 2050, higher amount of land being used in the EU for SRC, 
and  lower  amounts  of  other  cropland  and  other  natural  land  (including  abandoned 
cropland  and  grazing  land)  and  grazing  land  (2030  and  2050).  When  comparing  the 
Baseline and Emission Reduction Scenario, the total forest area (sum of used and unused 
forest) does not differ significantly; however, there are comparably large shifts within the 
forest, converting unused forest to used forest. 

Land use change in the rest of the world, i.e. outside the EU 28, is seen to change under 
the  Baseline  Scenario  with  again  other  natural  land  and  unused  forest  being  converted 
into  cropland,  grazing  land  and  used  forest  (Figure  7).  However,  there  is  an  additional 
impact  in  terms  of  land  use  change  in  the  rest  of  the  world  associated  with  the  EU 
Emission  reduction  scenario:  if  only  EU  increases  its  bioenergy  demand,  leading  to 
relatively more cropland and SRC area in 2050 and less other natural and unused forests. 
For 2030, similarly to the development in EU28 the reverse effect can be observed due to 
efficiency increases reducing biomass demand. 

Figure  6.  Land  use  in  EU28 in  the  Baseline  a)  and  differences  in  the  EU  Emission reduction  scenario  (REDU) 
between 2010 and 2030/2050 b). 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        28 

 
 
 
Figure 7. Land use in RoW in the Baseline a) and differences in the EU Emission reduction scenario (REDU) b). 

Biodiversity 

Under both the baseline and the EU emission reduction scenario, the impacts in the EU28 
on  land  classified  as  high  biodiversity  value  are  comparably  low.  This  is  due  to  the  fact 
that less than 1% of the area considered in the model in the EU28 is categorized as area 
of high biodiversity value, according to the global biodiversity data set from IUCN-WCMC. 
Looking  at  the  rest  of  the  world,  the  conversion  of  land  with  high  biodiversity  value  is 
more important because 20%  of the global land area considered by  the model is highly 
biodiverse.  Unused  forests  form  the  largest  share  of  the  areas  impacted,  followed  by 
other natural land and grazing land. It should be noted that, as for land use change, the 
Baseline results already show a significant impact on highly biodiverse areas in the rest 
of  the  world.  Under  the  EU  emission  reduction  scenario,  these  impacts  are  further 
increased but rather limited compared to the Baseline.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        29 

 
 
 
 
 
Box  7  –  Introduction  to  LULUCF  and  Agriculture  GHG  emissions  and  removal  categories 
used in ReceBio 

This box gives a short description of the various GHG categories reported in this project. This is not 
an exclusive list of all the sources and sinks that are accounted for within the project, but instead 
gives an overview of the main categories where central project results are reflected. 

Afforestation  –  the  category  includes  emissions  and  removals  related  to  afforestation  and 
accounts for changes in biomass, soil, and dead organic matter.  

Deforestation – the category includes emissions and removals related to deforestation related to 
changes in biomass, soil, and dead organic matter. 

Forest  Management  –  the  category  includes  emissions  and  removals  related  to  change  in  the 
above and below ground forest carbon stock. The change in the forest carbon stock mainly relates 
to changes in the thinning intensity and choice of forest rotation length. 

HWP  –  the  category  accounts  for  emissions  and  removals  related  to  changes  in  the  Harvested 
Wood Products (HWP) following the Durban Accords (Decision 2/CMP.7) and respective Tier 2 IPCC 
guidelines. The pool is initialized in the year 2000 and as such assumed to be in stable state at that 
time period.  

Net  Forestry  emissions  –  total  net  emissions  and  removals  from  Afforestation,  Deforestation, 
Forest Management, and HWP. 

LULUCF – the category represents the total net emissions and removals from Land use, Land use 
Change,  and  Forestry  (LULUCF).  In  addition  to  the  net  forestry  emissions,  the  category  accounts 
for  emissions/removals  from  land  use  change  in  terms  of  biomass  stocks  and  soils,  and  CO2 
emissions/removals from cropland management. Soil carbon emissions are reported using a Tier 1 
approach  based  on  GHG  accounting  IPCC  guidelines.  Emissions/removals  from  wetlands, 
settlements, and other land use are not considered in this project.   

Agriculture  –  the  category  represents  the  total  net  emissions  from  the  agriculture  and  livestock 
sectors.  This  includes  soil  N2O  emissions  from  fertilizer  application  (mineral  and  organic),  CH4 
emissions  from  rice  cultivation,  N2O  and  CH4  emissions  from  the  livestock  sector  (enteric 
fermentation, manure management, and manure dropped on pastures). 

AFOLU – the total net of emissions and removals from LULUCF and Agriculture.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GHG emissions 

Land  use  change  has  a  number  of  important  associated  environmental  impacts  and 
consequences.  Under  ReceBio  specifically,  besides  biodiversity  impacts,  GHG  emission 
balance implications have been investigated. GHG emissions effects primarily stem from 
changing patterns of forest use, patterns of afforestation and deforestation, the decline in 
other  natural  land  and  the  changes  in  the  use  of  agricultural  land  i.e.  cropland  and 
grassland. 

When considering the GHG emissions, there are a number of aspects that were analysed. 
Compared  to  the  Baseline,  the  forest  management  carbon  sink  is  seen  to  decline  more 
strongly  by  2050  in  the  EU  under  the  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario  (see  Figure  8), 
demonstrating  a  more  intensive  use  of  the  forests.  In  2050,  the  EU  emission  reduction 
scenario shows decreased EU deforestation emissions that are compensating for the loss 
of  the  forest  sink  to  a  large  degree.  Under  the  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario, 
sequestration  into  harvested  wood  products  in  2050  is  6  Mt  CO2eq  higher  compared  to 
the  Baseline.  More  products  are  being  produced  causing  the  stock  of  carbon  stored  in 
wood  products  to  increase.  Under  the  Baseline,  there  is  already  a  strong  increase  in 
afforestation GHG removals over time and, comparatively, there is only a small effect on 
afforestation GHG removals in the EU Emission reduction scenario. In total, compared to 
the  Baseline,  the  EU  emission  reduction  scenario  is  reducing  net  annual  emissions  from 
LULUCF  and  Agriculture  for  the  EU28  in  2030  and  2050  (see  Figure  9).  Agriculture 
emission  reductions  are  mainly  caused  by  reduced  livestock  production  that  is  shifted 
outside EU while demand for livestock products remains more or less unchanged. 

Under the EU Emission reduction scenario, both CO2 and non-CO 2 annual GHG emissions 
increased  in  the  rest  of  the  world  in  2050  when  compared  to  the  baseline  (see  Figure 
10). This implies that the EU exports emissions to the rest of the world as a consequence 
of increasing land used for bioenergy in the EU but also reduction of livestock production 
and increased imports of such products. 

Figure  8.  LULUCF  GHG  emissions  in  EU28  in  the  Baseline  a)  and  differences  in  the  EU  Emission  reduction 
scenario  (REDU)  b).  Net  LULUCF  emissions  represent  the  change  in  net  annual  emissions  and  removals  from 
Land use, Land use Change, and Forestry. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        31 

 
 
 
 
Figure 9. Total annual land use GHG emissions (LULUCF plus agriculture) in EU28 in the Baseline a) and 
differences in total net annual emissions for the EU Emission reduction scenario (REDU) b). 

Figure  10.  Total  land  use  GHG  emissions  in  RoW  in  the  Baseline  a)  and  differences  in  total  net  annual 
emissions for the EU Emission reduction scenario (REDU) b). 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONSEQUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ON BIOMASS 
SUPPLY 

The  analysis  of  environmental  impacts  revealed  that  a  number  of  indicators  show 
significant  changes  across  scenarios.  However,  only  a  very  limited  number  of  indicators 
can  technically  be  converted  into  environmental  constraints.  In  the  following  we 
summarize the performance of three selected indicators across scenarios and their use as 
environmental constraints. 

•  Conversion  of  areas  of  High  Biodiversity  Value  (HBV):  Areas  defined 
worldwide  as  HBV  (all  areas  where  three  or  more  high  biodiversity  hotspots  are 
overlapping) are excluded from any land conversion above the developments seen 
in the baseline. The initial land use of such areas (in the year 2010) is not allowed 
to  change  through  land  conversion.  However,  the  land  might  still  contribute  to 
production.  For  example  HBV  forest  area  will  remain  forest  and  (if  actively 
managed) supply biomass but cannot be converted to cropland. The constraint is 
to  be  applied  globally.  It  has  to  be  noted  that  only  a  small  amount  of  areas  are 
classified as HBV within EU28. 

•  Area  of  unused  EU  forest  converted  to  used  forest:  The  indicator  is  a  good 
proxy  for  assessing  changes  in  the  intensity  of  forest  management  due  to 
increased  biomass  demand.  For  the  constrained  scenario,  the  model  will  not  be 
allowed  to  convert  unused  forest  to  used  forest  above  the  level  observed  in  the 
Baseline  scenario  in  EU.  The  constraint  is  applied  for  each  MS  within  the  EU.  No 
such constraint is applied for the RoW. 

•  Conversion of other natural land in EU: no conversion of other natural land to 
any other land use is allowed beyond  EU baseline levels. One exception from this 
rule is that the land can be afforested. The constraint is applied to EU28. 

Box  8  –  Methodology  for  assessing  the  impact  of  environmental  constraints  of  EU 
biomass resource efficiency. 

After the assessment of environmental impacts, a set of environmental constraints were introduced 
into the model. These constraints are based on key environmental indicators, such as 'Conversion 
of  areas  of  HBV',  'Area  of  unused  EU  forest  converted  to  used  forest',  and  'Conversion  of  other 
natural  land  in  EU'.  These  indicators  showed  significant  impacts  across  the  policy  scenarios.  In  a 
second stage the respective model variables are constrained to not exceed a certain threshold (e.g. 
no conversion of highly biodiverse grazing land beyond Baseline levels). The result of combination 
of individual constraints for the EU Emission reduction scenario, and analysis where all constraints 
are  combined  are  implemented  and  assessed  for  each  of  the  four  policy  scenarios.  Indicators 
looked at in the constrained scenarios are: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Production of biomass in the EU by biomass type (i.e. round wood, forest and agricultural 
harvest residues, energy crops, industrial-by products). 
Import and export of biomass to (and from) EU with breakdown by type and export/import 
region. 
Land  use  of  the  various  classes  of  land  being  accounted  for  (forest,  energy  plantations, 
cropland, grazing land, other natural land). 
Total GHG emissions from the land use sector. 

Implications for production of biomass in EU 

As  stated  earlier,  land  of  HBV  is  mostly  located  outside  EU.  Nevertheless  there  are 
implications for biomass production for EU28 when a constraint on HBV is implemented. 
Five million m3 more harvest of sawlogs can be observed in EU in 2030, 20 Mm3 in 2050 
(see Figure 11) in the constrained scenario compared to the unconstrained EU Emission 
reduction  scenario  where  272  million  m3  and  315  million  m3  of  sawlogs  are  harvested 
respectively. At the same time less pulpwood is harvested in EU28. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
If forests in EU are protected from further intensification (i.e. prohibiting the conversion 
of  unused  forest  into  used  forest),  in  2050  both  harvests  of  sawlogs  and  pulpwood  are 
significantly  reduced  by  in  total  almost  60  million  m3.  A  relatively  large  share  (about 
30%) is compensated by the increased production of wood from SRC for pulp and energy 
production. 

An  opposite  effect  can  be  observed  if  other  natural  land  in  EU  is  protected  from 
conversion: There is less SRC biomass production that would be typically established on 
these lands (abandoned cropland and grazing land). At the same time, a small increase 
in the harvest of pulpwood occurs, compensating for the decreasing availability of SRC.  

Figure  11.  Change  in  biomass  production  in  EU  across constrained  scenarios  compared  to  the  unconstrained 
EU Emission reduction scenario. 

Implications for trade of biomass 

Changes in EU biomass production that can be observed across the three environmental 
constraints have diverging implications for biomass trade between EU and RoW.  

The protection of HBV land mostly affects land use outside EU and leads to decreased EU 
net-imports  of  pulp  logs,  sawlogs,  wood  pellets  and  industrial  by-products  in  2050  (see 
Figure 12). At the same time, this constraint leads to increasing net-export of sawnwood 
from EU28 to RoW and a small decrease in the net-import of chemical pulp. This increase 
in export of sawnwood from EU28 is directly related to the reduced availability of biomass 
sources  in  regions  with  high  shares  of  HBV  areas,  which  in  turn  decreases  the 
competitiveness of the forest based industries within these regions. 

Constraining  in  EU  either  land  use  change  from  unused  forest  to  used  forest  or  the 
conversion  of  other  natural  land  to  cropland  or  grazing  land  leads  to  increased  EU 
imports  of  biomass  feedstocks  in  2050.  This  is  especially  true  for  wood  pellets  of  which 
more  than  16  million  m3  (in  the  case  of  protection  of  unused  forest)  or  3  million  m3 
(protection of other natural land) additional imports are expected to the 52 million m3 in 
the  case  without  the  environmental  constraint.  The  increase  in  EU28  wood  pellets 
imports  would  mostly  be  met  by  imports  from  USA,  Canada,  and  the  former  Soviet 
Union.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        34 

 
 
 
 
 
In  terms  of  trade  of  semi-finished  wood  products,  constraining  the  conversion  in  EU  of 
other natural land to cropland or grazing land is noted to have a minor impact on the net 
trade both in 2030 and 2050. On the other hand, constraining EU land use change from 
unused  forest  to  used  forest  is  found  to  decrease  the  net-export  of  sawnwood  and 
slightly increase the net-import of chemical pulp. This is directly related to the decrease 
in  availability  of  raw  biomass  sources  within  EU28  which  cannot  economically  be  fully 
compensated by an increase in import of roundwood. 

Figure  12.  Change  in  EU  net  trade  across  constrained  scenarios  compared  to  the  EU  Emission  reduction 
scenario. 

Implications for land use in EU and in the RoW 

If land of HBV is protected from being converted, more pressure on the remaining areas 
is expected. This leads to an increased conversion of unused forest to used forest in the 
EU, i.e. an intensification of forest management on areas that are not considered of HBV 
(see Figure 13). 

A  constraint  on  the  conversion  of  unused  forest  in  EU  prevents  an  intensification 
compared to the EU Emission reduction scenario. But also other land areas are affected: 
in order to compensate for reduced biomass supply from EU forests, EU SRC production 
expands in 2050 at the expenses of grazing land, cropland and other natural land. 

As  expected,  land  use  in  RoW  is  mostly  affected  by  the  constraint  that  is  targeted  at 
areas  outside  EU  (HBV  area  constraint,  see  Figure 14).  Already  in  2030,  this leads  to  a 
relative reduction of cropland area compared to the EU Emission reduction scenario and 
increases other natural vegetation but also grazing land. Unused forests in RoW are not 
affected in the constrained scenario of HBV conversion. In fact, the net balance (only this 
can be assessed here)  shows a reduction of unused forest area in the medium-term (in 
2030).  A  likely  cause  for  this  is  the  fact  that  the  HBV  forests  that  are  protected  in  this 
scenario are also relatively fertile compared to forests with no HBV. If these more fertile 
forests  are  protected  from  conversion  there  is  the  need  for  more  conversion  of 
unprotected forest to compensate for the loss of yield. 

Land use in RoW is also noted to be affected by the constraints that are targeted only at 
areas inside of EU. There is a significant conversion of unused forest to used forest in the 
RoW  that  is  accompanied  with  constraining  forestry  intensification  within  EU.  The  area 
affected in RoW (more  than 5 Mha) is of a similar size compared to the area prevented 
from conversion in EU (see Figure 13). 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        35 

 
 
 
 
Figure  13:  Implication  of  environmental  constraints  for  EU  land  use  (b)  compared  against  the  EU  emission 
reduction scenario (a). 

Figure  14:  Implication  of  environmental  constraints  for  RoW  land  use  (b)  compared  against  the  EU  emission 
reduction scenario (a). 

Implications for GHG emissions from the land use sector 

Figure  15  describes  changes  of  net  GHG  emissions  from  the  land  use  sector  in  EU28 
aggregated to total LULUCF (CO2) and total agriculture (non-CO2) emissions compared to 
the  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario.  For  the  EU,  changes  in  net  LULUCF  emissions 
dominate changes in net Agricultural emissions across all scenarios and in all years.  On 
the  global  level  and  in  the  long-term,  all  environmental  constraints  that  were 
assessed  lead  to  net  global  GHG  emission  reductions.  In  2050  net  land  use 
emissions  would  relatively  be  reduced  by  more  than  5  Mt  CO2  with  a  constraint  on  the 
conversion of HBV land, by more than 25 Mt CO2 with a constraint on unused European 
forests, and by more than 10 Mt CO2 with a constraint on the conversion of other natural 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
land.  Figure  16  shows  that  these  relative  emission  reductions  are  associated  with 
increases  in  emissions  in  RoW  in  2050  in  the  case  of  a  scenario  where  EU  forest 
management  is  not  intensified  (unused  forest  constraint).  The  increases  in  emissions  in 
RoW  are  though  lower  than  the  reduction  of  emissions  in  the  EU,  mainly  related  to  an 
overall  global  reduction  of  the  harvest  of  wood.  Other  constraints  lead  to  net  GHG 
emission  reduction  in  RoW.  This  is  especially  true  for  constraints  on  HBV  areas  where 
large  emission  reductions  compared  to  the  reference  can  be  observed  for  agricultural 
emissions. This is due to a reduction in global meat and milk production by 8 Mt of meat 
and 2 Ml of milk (about 1-2% of total production). As the conversion of HBV areas to the 
most  productive  grazing  land  for  cattle  is  limited,  prices  for  meat  and  milk  increase 
compared  to  the  unconstrained  scenario.  Also,  more  grazing  land  has  to  be  created  to 
compensate  for  high  productive  land  not  being  available.  Therefore  the  net  balance  of 
land use results in more grazing land under constraints. This effect is  more pronounced 
in the RoW than in EU28. 

In the global sum of net land use emissions, all environmental constraints result in 
emission  reductions  compared  to  the  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario  (sum  of 
Figures  above,  not  shown).  This  means  that  there  are  positive  trade-offs  of 
constraints  to  protect  biodiversity,  unused  forests  and  other  natural  land  from 
conversion  regarding  global  net  GHG  emissions  from  the  land  use  sector. There 
are  regional  differences  (here  we  show  only  EU28  and  RoW)  and  the  effect  differs  for 
LULUCF and agriculture emissions. 

Figure 15: Implication of environmental constraints for EU net land use emissions (b) compared against the EU 
emission reduction scenario (a). 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        37 

 
 
 
 
Figure 16: Implication of environmental constraints for RoW net land use emissions (b) compared against the 
EU emission reduction scenario (a). 

Implications of combined constraints for biomass resources efficiency 

The  environmental  constraints  were  also  assessed  in  terms  of  their  combined  effect  for 
each  of  the  four  policy  scenarios  developed  in  the  ReceBio  project  (EU  Emission 
Reduction  scenario,  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario,  Increased  Rest  of  the 
World  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario,  Increased  EU  Biomass  Import  scenario).  For  this 
assessment,  all  the  environmental  constraints  were  simultaneously  applied  (protecting 
HBV land, restricting conversion of unused  forest into used  forest to Baseline level, and 
restricting other natural land conversion to Baseline level). 

As for the single scenarios, the combination of the environmental constraints also 
resulted in reductions of net GHG emissions, both in the EU28 and in the Rest of 
the  World.  Figure  17  presents  net  land  use  emissions  for  EU28  as  the  difference 
between  constrained  and  unconstrained  policy  scenarios.  For  the  EU,  changes  in  net 
LULUCF  emissions  dominate  changes  in  net  Agricultural  emissions  across  all  scenarios 
and in all years. Net EU forestry emissions in 2050 are reduced in all scenarios between 
7 Mt  CO2  to  almost  40 Mt  CO2  if  the  combined  constraints  are  applied.  The  effect  of 
combined environmental constraints is most prominent for the EU emission reduction and 
Increased RoW bioenergy demand scenarios, where the constraints lead to a reduction in 
forest  management  intensity,  which  in  turn  leads  to  an  increased  sink  in  the  existing 
forests.  In  the  rest  of  the  world,  agriculture  emissions  are  more  affected  by  the 
environment  constraints  than in  EU  (Figure  18).  The  constraint  on  HBV  area  conversion 
contributes most to this effect by a reduction in agricultural and livestock production and 
reducing  the  amount  of  land  available  to  afforestation.  While  the  implications  for 
agriculture GHG emissions of constraints are consistent across all scenarios, the effect for 
LULUCF emissions is less straightforward.  In all four scenarios the combined constraints 
decrease net LULUCF emissions for RoW in the short run (2030) and increase them in the 
long run (2050) but with different intensity, ranging in 2050 from 16 Mt for the Increased 
RoW bioenergy demand scenario to almost 60 Mt in the EU emission reduction scenario. 

On  the  global  level,  net  land  use  emissions  in  all  scenarios  are  reduced  when 
jointly combining the environmental constraints, due to large reductions of non-
CO 2 emissions from the agriculture and livestock sectors. This is due to increased 
prices  for  livestock  products.  Under  HBV  constraints  only  less  fertile  land  is  available, 
leading to higher costs of conversion and more grazing land to be created to compensate 
for relative productivity losses. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        38 

 
 
 
 
Figure 17: Differences in EU net land use emissions in constrained policy scenarios compared to unconstrained 
scenarios. 

Figure  18:  Differences  in  RoW  net  land  use  emissions  in  constrained  policy  scenarios  compared  to 
unconstrained scenarios. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RESOURCE AND POLICY ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED CASE STUDY 
COUNTRIES 

Three case study countries, Finland, Germany and Italy, were analysed in more detail in 
terms  of  their  current  biomass  use  and  availability,  as  well  as  their  existing  national 
policies affecting the use of biomass resources. These case study countries represent EU 
Member States of different climatic zones  from Northern, Central and  Southern parts of 
Europe,  and  also  showcase  countries  with  a  different  emphasis  and  intensity  in  their 
wood  use.  The  aim  of  the  case  studies  was  to  acknowledge  the  heterogeneity  of  the 
Member  States,  requiring  in-depth  analysis  of  the  effects  of  possible  future  bioenergy 
development in different parts of the EU, while also exploring the modelling results on a 
Member  State  level  to  highlight  issues  that  are  significant  for  individual  countries,  but 
maybe not shown on a larger scale analysis. For more detailed results of the case study 
analysis, please refer to the Task 5 report. 

The boreal forests of Finland are mostly privately-owned, and managed more intensively 
than  in  Germany  or  Italy.  However,  the  timber  harvest  volumes  remain  lower  than  in 
Germany  due  to  lower  increment  rates.  There  is  a  well-established  pulp  and  paper 
industry and sawnwood production is also an important sector in Finland. The energy use 
of  woody  biomass,  especially  industrial  by-products  and  forest  residues,  is  large.  In 
Germany,  a  large  proportion  of  the  forests  are  under  public  ownership.  The  forest 
increment  is  the  largest  of  the  studied  case  study  countries,  and  Germany  has  also  the 
highest  harvested  volume.  Material  production  is  focused  particularly  on  sawnwood  and 
board  production.  Germany  has  the  largest  rate  of  biomass  recovery  and  recycling 
among  the  three  case  study  countries,  and  is  at  the  forefront  of  recycling  also  on  the 
European  scale.  In  Italy,  by  contrast  to  the  other  two  case  study  countries,  the  forests 
are  less  actively  managed,  and  the  forest  industry  plays  a  smaller  role  in  the  national 
economy. As the domestic harvest volume is relatively low, the forest industry in Italy is 
largely reliant on imported biomass feedstock.  

With  respect  to  policy  in  the  case  study  countries,  those  targets  included  in  the  EU 
Renewable  Energy  Directive  (RED)  are  the  main  drivers  for  current  renewable  energy 
production and it is in this context that efforts  to promote bioenergy are  framed.  These 
targets are in all cases  supported by incentives to promote production of bioenergy and 
the  expansion  of  bioenergy  infrastructure,  largely  for  heat  or  CHP.  However,  the  nature 
of  the  bioenergy  use  and  feedstock  production  varies:  Finland  is  almost  exclusively 
focused  on  forestry,  woody  biomass  use  and  associated  waste  and  residues,  while  by 
comparison, Italy’s focus is around the expansion of agro-forestry, short rotation coppice 
and  use  of  general  residues  and  wastes.  Germany  shows  a  broader  focus  reflecting  the 
potential availability of a wider range of feedstocks. This difference impacts on the nature 
of policy support and the consequences of increasing demand for biomass i.e. increased 
intensity of forest use compared to expansion in the agro-forestry area. 

The  model  results  for  the  Baseline  scenario  were  analysed  for  the  three  countries  to 
evaluate  developments  in  land  and  resource  use  over  time  from  the  period  2010-2050. 
For  Finland,  the  Baseline  scenario  estimates  almost  negligible  change  in  land  use  over 
time  until  2050.  However,  the  increase  in  demand  for  bioenergy  and  woody  material 
results in some unused forest being taken into use, and the overall land use structure of 
the  country  remains  dominated  by  actively  managed  forests  used  for  wood  harvests. 
There  is  not  much  change  across  the  timeline  in  terms  of  the  wood  flows,  except  for 
some  small  changes  in  the  imports  of  roundwood.  There  are  increases  in  sawnwood 
outputs  and  industrial by-products:  increased  energy  demand  creates  more  demand  for 
sawmill  by-products  and  hence  makes  sawnwood  production  more  profitable.  On  the 
supply side, the most noticeable trend is the doubling of imported wood chip from 2.2 to 
4.6  Mm3  between  2010  and  2050.  Otherwise  this  already  well-evolved  wood  production 
market does not change much over the simulated timeline.   

For Germany, the most notable trend is the emergence of short rotation coppice (SRC) as 
a feedstock over the 2010 to 2030 time horizon. A relatively small increase in the harvest 
and use of wood for material purposes is seen within the country. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        40 

 
 
For  Italy,  as  for  Germany,  there  is  significant  expansion  in  SRC  use  for  energy.  Within 
the  Italian  model  outputs  there  are  significant  domestic  impacts  in  terms  of  land  use 
change  in  Italy  –  most  noticeably  with  conversion  of  other  natural  land  to  forest  -  and 
also significant rises in roundwood imports and pellet imports.  

All in all, the three case study countries were found to vary considerably with respect to 
the  resource  availability,  existing  wood-based  industries,  and  the  scope  of  the  use  of 
biomass for material and energy purposes. Nevertheless, the emergence of an emphasis 
on  the  bioeconomy  is  evident  in  all  three  countries,  which  is  reflected  in  the  policy 
analysis and shown also in the model results. Overall, the case study analysis supported 
the modelling approach, finding the projected biomass use over time to 2050 to be in line 
with the current resources and policies in place.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        41 

 
 
 
 
VALUE ADDED AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT 

In  this  study  we  have  used  an  integrated  modelling  approach.  The  key  assets  of  this 
study include:  

•  A cross sectorial approach was used, covering the forest, agriculture and livestock 
sectors.  This  made  it  possible  to  assess  the  potential  direct  implications  of 
increasing  bioenergy  and  also  enabled  the  analysis  of  indirect  and  displacement 
effects; 

•  A global approach made it possible to assess the implications of a policy focusing 

on the EU but also having implications for the Rest of the World;  

•  The  study  provides  an  assessment  of  potential  impacts  across  a  multitude  of 
indicators,  including  environmental  consequences,  greenhouse  gas  emissions 
impacts,  land  use  change,  harvest  of  wood,  as  well  as  the  use  of  biomass  and 
wood across sectors; 

•  Environmental  constraints  on  biomass  supply  were  applied  to  assess  the  cross 

sectorial benefits of policies focusing on enhancing key environmental indicators.  

However,  like  for  all  modeling  studies,  there  are  limitations  for  this  project  and  its 
conclusions. These limitations include:  

•  As  always  in  scenario  analysis,  the  study  results  critically  depend  on  the 

assumptions and constraints of the modelling framework.  

•  There  are  limitations  to  the  data  sources  available  for  modelling  environmental 
indicators  and  the  assessment  is  restricted  to  only  considering  a  subset  of  all 
potential environmental implications of biomass use.  

•  Some  feature  are  challenging  to  capture  within  a  modelling  framework:  For 
instance, how land owners and biomass producers react to changes in policies and 
prices;  and  the  institutional  and  infrastructural  barriers  to  the  mobilization  of 
biomass feedstocks.  

•  There  are  inevitable  uncertainties  in  projecting  the  development  of  new  goods, 
new  markets,  new  trade  routes,  new  technologies  and  changes  in  end-consumer 
consumption  patterns.  These  are  all  aspects  where  large  changes  may  occur  in 
the future that influence future developments. 

More specifically to this project which uses an integrated modelling approach, a number 
of limitations should also be considered when interpreting the results of the assessment: 

•  The  scenarios  only  represent  cases  where  the  bioenergy  demand  for  heat, 
electricity  and  transport  is  exogenously  defined  and  not  sensitive  to  changes  in 
feedstock prices. Interactions between different energy options for reaching policy 
targets were out of the scope of this study.  

•  The  analysis  accounts  for  the  impact  of  GHG  emissions  from  land  use,  land  use 
change  and  forestry  (LULUCF).  However,  no  feedback  from  LULUCF  emissions  to 
policy targets is considered within the study. 

•  There  are  limitations  to  data  available  for  modelling  GHG  emissions  on  a  global 
level.  In  particular,  consistent  datasets  of  forest  age  structure,  location  of 
management, as well as local forest treatment regimens are challenging to collect. 

•  The  data  sources  underlying  the  study  for  representing  land  classes,  vegetation 
cover,  and  the  management  of  land  types  carry  uncertainties.  This  creates 
challenges in representing aspects such as ownership structures, typical size of an 
ownership, status of protection and local regulations. 

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        42 

 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSIONS 

This  project  examined  the  resource  efficiency  implications  of  increased  EU  use  of 
bioenergy  for  electricity  and  heat  until  2050.  Methods  of  analysis  include  an  extensive 
literature and statistical review, detailed modelling of wood biomass production and use, 
and  in-depth  analysis  of  the  implications  on  a  multitude  of  sustainability  indicators.  In 
addition,  three  case  studies  were  carried  out  to  examine  the  results  against  country-
specific  policies  and  resources.  The  chosen  approach  of  integrating  trade,  land  use, 
biomass  harvest,  material  production,  food  and  feed  production  and  competition  for 
biomass  resources  between  sectors  was  found  essential  in  examining  the  complex 
question  of  resource  efficiency  of  increased  bioenergy  demand,  within  the  EU  and 
globally.   

The  results  show  that  increased  bioenergy  demand  leads  to  a  stronger  pressure  on  the 
forests  in  the  EU,  resulting  in  higher  harvest  levels  and  more  extensive  use  of  forests 
throughout  the  EU.  In  addition,  the  results  show  that  high  future  bioenergy  demand 
levels  are  likely  to  lead  to  increased  EU  biomass  imports,  especially  wood  pellets.  High 
bioenergy  demand  levels  are  also  seen  to  counteract  cascading  use  of  wood,  and  even 
lead to increased combustion of roundwood to energy. While on the aggregate level it is 
seen  that  the  total  production  of  wood  material  is  not  largely  impacted  by  increasing 
bioenergy  consumption,  there  are  large  sectorial  differences.  Some  material-producing 
industries (esp. sawmill industries) are projected to increase their profitability, driven by 
increased  demand  for  their  by-products  to  be  used  to  energy,  some  industries  will  face 
increased  competition  for  feedstocks  (esp.  particleboard  production).  The  project  also 
shows  that  without  the  additional  biomass  produced  from  fast-growing  plantations  such 
as short rotation coppice, the pressure to use roundwood directly for energy and increase 
EU biomass imports will heavily increase.  

Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Final Report                        43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on impacts on resource 
efficiency of future EU demand 
for bioenergy 

Task 1 Report 

mmmll 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Authors: 
Matias Pekkanen (Indufor Oy) 
Catherine Bowyer (IEEP) 
Nicklas Forsell (IIASA) 
Katja Hünecke (Öko-Institut e.V.) 
Anu Korosuo (IIASA) 
Silvia Nanni (IEEP) 
Petteri Nuolivirta (Indufor Oy) 

Consortium leader: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 

Consortium members: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 
Indufor Oy, Finland 
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), United Kingdom 
Öko-Institut e.V., Germany 

August 2014  2 

 
 
 
        
          
       
         
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Table of contents   

Executive summary ........................................................................................... 4 
Glossary ........................................................................................................... 7 
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................13 
2 EU state of play .............................................................................................18 
2.1 Wood biomass ............................................................................................18 
2.1.1 Total wood consumption in the EU ..............................................................18 
2.1.2 Supply and demand of wood in material use ................................................20 
2.1.3 Supply and demand of wood in energy production ........................................28 
2.1.4 Energy and material use of wood biomass ...................................................49 

2.2 Agricultural biomass ....................................................................................54 
2.2.1 Woody/ligno-cellulosic biomass ..................................................................54 
2.2.2 Cropping residues   ..................................................................................57 
2.2.3 Residues from livestock .............................................................................60 
2.2.4 Supply and demand ..................................................................................62 

2.3 Biogenic waste ............................................................................................63 
2.3.1 
production and material uses .............................................................................64 

Supply and demand of biogenic waste for energy 

3 Global supply and demand of biomass ..............................................................72 
3.1 Biomass supply and demand in major global regions .......................................72 
 ..................................................................................72 
3.1.1 Wood biomass 
3.1.2 Agricultural biomass .................................................................................76 
 ..................................................................................77 
3.1.3 Biogenic waste 

3.2 Biomass trade within the EU and globally .......................................................78 
3.2.1 Wood biomass 
 ..................................................................................79 
3.2.2 Agricultural biomass .................................................................................93 
 ..................................................................................94 
3.2.3 Biogenic waste 

4 Costs and prices of biomass ............................................................................96 
4.1 Costs of biomass supply ...............................................................................96 
4.1.1 Wood biomass 
 ..................................................................................96 
4.1.2 Agricultural biomass ............................................................................... 102 
 ................................................................................ 103 
4.1.3 Biogenic waste 

4.2 Biomass market prices ............................................................................... 104 
 ................................................................................ 104 
4.2.1 Wood biomass 
4.2.2 Agricultural biomass ............................................................................... 112 
 ................................................................................ 112 
4.2.3 Biogenic waste 

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 113 
General conclusions ........................................................................................ 113 
Wood biomass ................................................................................................ 113 
Agricultural biomass ....................................................................................... 115 
Biogenic waste ............................................................................................... 115 

August 2014  3 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Executive summary 
Biomass  and  its  use  for  bioenergy  are  central  in  reaching  the  European  Union’s  20% 
target  of  its  primary  energy  consumption  from  renewable  energy  sources  by  2020, 
and for ensuring sustainable energy production even thereafter. The Study on impacts 
on resource efficiency of future EU demand for bioenergy provides insight on different 
future  trajectories  of  increased  use  of  bioenergy  in  the  EU,  and  their  impacts  on 
resource  efficiency,  natural  resources  and  the  environment.  Three  types  of  biomass 
are analysed in detail: wood biomass, agricultural biomass and biogenic waste. 

This Task 1 report provides an analysis of the state of play of biomass use, production 
and  price  formation  in  the  EU  and  globally.  The  focus  is  on  the  biomass  used  for 
material purposes and energy production, excluding transportation fuels. 

EU state of play 
Wood biomass 

The forest-based industries within the EU are major producers of woody commodities 
(e.g. sawnwood, plywood and paper) as well as bioenergy. Of all wood consumption in 
EU,  31%  to  45%  is  used  for  energy  (Table  1).  Of  the  wood  biomass  being  used  for 
energy  purposes,  about  one  third  is  firewood  for  heating  purposes,  half  is  used  by 
forest  industries  mainly  for  processing  heat  and  electricity  production,  and  16%  is 
used as wood chips for bioenergy production. Forest industries have long traditions in 
utilizing production residues into energy supply – for example, pulp industry produces 
a majority of its energy demand from its by-product black liquor. However, while the 
use of bioenergy within forest industry accounts for a considerable amount of the total 
bioenergy  consumption,  the  biggest  prospects  for  increasing  the  current  bioenergy 
uses or wood biomass lie within firewood and chip consumption.  

It is important to note that energy use of wood is strongly linked to the forest-based 
industries, in particular sawmill industries, wood board industries, and pulp and paper 
industries. Thus, it is essential to consider these industries as a package, as they use 
different parts of the trees and even each other’s by-products. Saw logs are by far the 
most  valuable  tree  parts,  followed  by  pulpwood  where  smaller  diameter  or  lesser 
quality trees are used. Tops, branches and stumps, together with the woody residues 
from  forest  industries,  are  used  for  bioenergy  production.  Thus,  the  production  of 
bioenergy  from  wood  biomass  is  strongly  linked  to  paper  and  sawmill  industries  and 
the fluctuations within these industries have a strong influence on biomass availability 
and prices in Europe. Moreover, increasing competition of domestic wood raw material 
is likely to cause the EU becoming more dependent on wood imports and the ability to 
re-utilize the wood by recovering and recycling. 

Firewood is a large source for heating, but it is criticized for its inefficiency in energy 
production  together  with  health  and  environmental  concerns.  While  firewood  may  in 
many rural areas be the only viable option for heating, there is also  a large potential 
for  increased  energy  efficiency  through  more  advanced  technologies  for  heat 
conversion. 

Forest  chips  are  increasing  in  importance,  especially  in  combined  heat  and  power 
(CHP) production. They are primarily used in Northern  Europe where the demand  for 
heating  is  more  constant  throughout  the  year,  thereby  providing  better  economic 
grounds  for  CHP  plants.  Due  to  their  high  moisture  content,  chips  require  relatively 
large  storage  space  and  are  difficult  to  store  for  longer  time  period.  This  hinders  the 
trade possibilities of forest chips, and as a result, the plants based on forest chips as 

August 2014  4 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

feedstock are strongly dependent on the local availability of large quantities of cheap 
raw material. 

Wood pellets have a high energy value to size-ratio and are thus more advantageous 
to  trade  than  chips  (or  roundwood).  They  are  used  for  residential  and  industrial 
heating  and  CHP  systems.  The  EU  is  the  largest  pellet  supplier  and  consumer  in  the 
world.  The  capacity  to  produce  pellets  is  already  higher  than  demand  and  supply. 
Large  scale  investments  to  pellet  combustion  plants  seem  to  be  lacking  due  to 
uncertainty towards public support schemes. 

Recovered  wood  has  a  very  positive  image  and  is  used  for  energy  production 
especially  in  Germany.  However,  lack  of  effective  and  established  collection  and 
sorting systems is preventing its more large-scale utilization. 

Agricultural biomass 

Agricultural  biomass  is  largely  used  for  biofuels  in  the  transport  sector.  Within  heat 
and power production, which is the focus of this report, agricultural biomass has less 
importance.  The  most  used  sources  for  bioenergy  are  short-rotation  forestry  (SRF), 
lignocellulosic species, and cropping and livestock residues. Globally, land competition 
and  falling  social  acceptance  due  to  rising  food  prices  are  obstacles  for  biomass 
production  for  energy  in  agricultural  lands.  Of  agricultural  biomass,  agricultural 
residues provide the most recommendable energetic feedstock in the future, but their 
high moisture content and bulkiness cause them to be profitable mostly in local trade 
only. 

Biogenic waste 

Wastes  contribute  to  4%  of  the  global  primary  supply  of  bioenergy.  At  the  EU  level, 
the share of wastes in the bioenergy consumption is about 12%. However, increasing 
rates of recycling of the municipal and food wastes is likely to decrease the availability 
of biogenic waste for energy production over time.  

Advanced biofuels from biomass 

The  success  and  technological  development  of  pilot  projects  of  wood  based  liquid 
biofuels  production  will  define  whether  it  will  become  a  growing  wood  consuming 
industry.  However  the  production  will  likely  be  integrated  to  existing  chemical  pulp 
industry. 

For  agricultural  biomass,  advanced  biofuels  have  progressed  more  slowly  than 
expected  in  recent  years.  For  example,  the  increase  of  production  capacities  from 
2012  to  2013  was  22-fold  lower  than  needed  to  reach  the  IEA  2°C  Scenario  (2DS) 
targets. 

Global supply and demand of biomass 
International  trade  of  energetic  wood  biomass  is  mostly  trade  of  wood  pellets  and 
wood  chips.  The  EU  is  expected  to  become  more  dependent  on  imports  in  their 
consumption  of  industrial  wood  pellets.  Although  the  domestic  production  is 
increasing,  it  consists  largely  of  residential  quality  pellets  and  will  not  be  enough  to 
satisfy  the  growing  demand.  Today,  Russia  is  a  major  trade  partner  of  wood  pellets 
with the EU. About 700 000 tonnes of wood pellets are imported annually from Russia 
to the EU; majority to Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and the UK. Globally, 
wood  pellets  are  increasing  in  importance  especially  in  North  America  and  in  China. 
Pellet  production  in  the  US  tripled  in  two  years  between  2012  and  2013.  The  pellet 

August 2014  5 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

exports  from  North  America  to  Europe  doubled  over  these  past  two  years,  main 
importers  being  the  Netherlands,  Belgium  and  the  UK.  North  American  wood  pellet 
manufacturers  are  building  new  facilities  to  enhance  the  volumes  to  the  EU  market, 
and it is probable that the exports continue to increase at least in the near future. Also 
China  is  rapidly  gaining  importance  in  the  global  pellet  markets;  85%  of  the  pellets 
produced are based on non-wood raw materials such as agricultural residues like rice 
husks and straws. 

Majority  of  the  total  wood  chip  trade  is  related  to  pulp  and  paper  industries.  Wood 
chips for the EU residential market are primarily sourced locally. Most important non-
EU countries drawing major trade flows are Turkey, Japan and China, of which Turkey 
is  the  most  important  due  to  its  geographical  proximity.  Turkey  imports  a  major 
volume of wood chips from North America. Japan and China import a large amount of 
wood  chips  for  pulp  production,  China  even  for  wood  based  panels,  mostly  from 
Vietnam, Thailand, Australia and Indonesia. 

Data quality  
Data  quality  and  availability  is  good  for  traditional  wood  based  commodities  such  as 
sawnwood,  wood  based  panels  and  pulp  and  paper  products.  For  wood  biomass 
energy commodities there are often no established data collection protocols, thus only 
a few member states present good quality data of production and trade. Data related 
to production and trade of wood pellets is the most developed due to the fact being a 
globally  traded  commodity  with  relatively  well  developed  and  transparent  reporting 
standards. 

For  agricultural  biomass  and  biogenic  waste,  the  figures  are  less  reliable  as  data 
collection  is  not  as  well  established  as  within  wood  industry,  and  in  some  countries 
and commodities, the figures can only be considered as rough estimates. 

August 2014  6 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Glossary 
Anaerobic digestion 
Anaerobic  digestion  is  a  biological  process  making  it  possible  to  degrade  organic 
matter, in absence of oxygen, by producing biogas and sludge.  The organic matter is 
degraded partially by the combined action of several types of micro-organisms. 

Bioenergy 
Energy produced from biomass sources excluding biofuels. 

Biofuels 
Transportation  fuels  made  from  biomass;  such  as  biodiesel,  bioethanol  and  biogas. 
First-generation biofuels refer to fuels derived from  food crops, such as grains, sugar 
beet and oil seeds. They are relatively easy to manufacture, and thus the main type of 
biofuels produced today. Second-generation, or advanced, biofuels are produced from 
non-food  biomass  such  as  ligno-cellulosic  materials  or  biogenic  waste.  They  are 
considered  superior  to  first-generation  biofuels  especially  in  terms  of  their  social  and 
environmental  impact;  however,  their  production  is  much  more  complicated  and 
commercial production methods are still under development. 

Biogenic waste 
According  to  Article  3(4)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  (2008/98/CE),  biogenic 
waste  is  ‘biodegradable  garden  and  park  waste,  food  and  kitchen  waste  from 
households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from food 
processing plants.’ 

Biomass 
“Biodegradable  fraction  of  products,  waste  and  residues  from  biological  origin  from 
agriculture  (including  vegetal  and  animal  substances),  forestry  and  related  industries 
including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial 
and municipal waste”. (Renewable Energy Directive (article 2). 

Bio-oil 
Also known as pyrolysis oil is a liquid produced from pyrolysis. It has a calorific value 
of  17.5  MJ/kg  and  an  energy  density  of  20-30  GJ/m3.  Bio-oil  can  be  combusted  for 
power in boiler, stationary engines and turbines, or upgraded for transport fuel. 

Black liquor 
Black  liquor  is  the  spent  cooking  liquor  produced  from  the  kraft  process  when 
digesting  pulpwood  into  paper  pulp.  Lignin,  hemicelluloses  and  other  substances  are 
removed  from  the  wood  to  free  the  cellulose  fibres.  The  pulp  industry  derives  a 
significant share its bio-energy in the form of black liquor. 

CHP 
Combined Heat and Power production 

Co-firing 
Co-firing  is  a  primary  application  of  combusting  industrial  wood  pellets  aside  with 
pulverized  coal  in  older  coal  power  plants.  Typically  co-firing  enables  5-15%  mixture 
of  wood  pellets  combusted  with  coal  in  order  to  minimize  investment  costs,  process 
modification  and,  most  of  all,  overall  process  efficiency.  However,  with  equipment 
modernization 40% share of wood pellets is possible. 

August 2014  7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Composting 
Composting  is  a  process  by  which  organic  matter  is  degraded  by  a  microbial 
population  consisting  of  bacteria  and  fungi  consuming  oxygen  and  producing  CO2, 
water, compost or humus and heat (exothermic). 

CSR 
Corporate Social Responsibility 

EU 
European Union 

FAO 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

Firewood 
Firewood  consists  of  wood  that  is  harvested  from  forest  of  other  wooded  land  and 
used in small dwellings for simple heating applications such as fireplaces, ovens or log 
boilers. Firewood is usually used in theform of split logs.  

Food waste 
According  to  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  amending  the  Waste  Framework  Directive, 
food  waste  is  ‘food  including  inedible  parts  from  the  food  supply  chain,  not  including 
food  diverted  to  material  uses  such  as  bio-based  products,  animal  feed  or  sent  for 
redistribution.’ 

Forest-based industries 
Industries using wood, paper or recovered paper and wood as their main raw material. 
These  include  manufacturers  of  sawnwood,  wood-based  panels  and  other  wooden 
products, pulp and paper, as well as the packaging and printing industries.  

Forest chips 
Forest  chips  are  fresh  wood  chips  made  directly  of  wood  that  is  harvested  from  the 
forest, used for energy production, and has not had any previous use (as opposed to 
wood  chips  from  industrial  by-products).  There  are  several  raw  material  types  of 
forest chips:  
  Tops and branches removed from trees during final felling 
  Sawlogs that are rejected being unsuitable for material purposes due to decay etc. 
  Delimbed small size stems or un-delimbed small-size trees from thinnings 
  Pulpwood size logs allocated to energy production from thinning or final felling 
  Tree stumps. 

Forest residues 
Forest  residues  are  sometimes  referred  to  separately  from  forest  chips.  Forest 
residues  are  typically  leftover  branches,  stumps  and  stem  tops  from  logging 
operations – thinning or final felling, chipped and mostly used for energy production. 
Forest residues are gathered from the logging site and forwarded to the roadside to be 
loaded on truck for long distance transport. 

FSC 
Forest Stewardship Council 

Fuelwood 
Fuelwood  is  roundwood  being  used  as  fuel  for  such  purposes  as  cooking,  heating  or 
power  production.  It  includes  wood  harvested  from  main  stems,  branches  and  other 
parts  of  trees  (where  these  are  harvested  for  fuel)  and  wood  that  is  used  for  the 

August 2014  8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

production  of  charcoal  (e.g.  in  pit  kilns  and  portable  ovens),  wood  pellets  and  other 
agglomerates. The volume of roundwood used  in charcoal production is estimated by 
using a factor of 6.0 to convert from the weight (mt) of charcoal produced to the solid 
volume (m³) of roundwood used in production. It also includes wood chips to be used 
for fuel that are made directly (i.e. in the forest) from roundwood. (FAOSTAT) 

Hardwood 
Hardwood  generally  refers  to  all  deciduous  woods  derived  from  trees  classified 
botanically  as  Angiospermae,  e.g.  Acer  spp.,  Dipterocarpus  spp.,  Entandrophragma 
spp., Eucalyptus spp., Fagus spp., Populus spp., Quercus spp., Shorea spp., Swietonia 
spp., Tectona spp., etc. Sometimes referred to as broadleaves. (FAOSTAT) 

ICT 
Information and communications technology 

Industrial By-Products 
Industrial by-products include industrial chips, sawdust, shavings, trimmings and bark. 
They are supplied as by-products available in proportions from the processes of wood 
products  industry,  mainly  sawmilling  but  also  wood  based  panels  and  joinery 
production.  Industrial  by-products  have  to  be  clean  and  they  are  not  altered  by  any 
chemical  process.  They  are  important  raw  materials  for  pulp,  wood  based  panels 
(Particleboard,  MDF/HDF)  and  wood  pellet  production  as  well  as  in  bioenergy 
production as such. 

Landfill 
Directive  1999/31/EC  on  the  landfill  of  waste  defines  landfill  as  a  waste  disposal  site 
for  the  deposit  of  the  waste  onto  or  into  land  (i.e.  underground),  including  internal 
waste disposal sites, and a permanent site (i.e. more than one year) which is used for 
temporary storage of waste. 

MDF/HDF 
Medium-Density  Fibreboard  (MDF)  is  a  wood-based  panel  made  of  fibres  bonded 
together  with  resin.  When  density  exceeds  0.8  g/cm³,  it  may  also  be  referred  to  as 
“High-Density  Fibreboard”  (HDF).  It  is  reported  in  cubic  metres  solid  volume.  The 
board  is  relatively  homogeneous  throughout  its  thickness  without  distinctive  surface 
and core layers. Therefore the processing qualities are better than with solid wood and 
particleboard. (FAOSTAT) 

Mtoe 
Million tonnes of oil equivalent. One tonne of oil equivalent (toe) refers to the amount 
of energy released by burning one tonne of crude oil. 

NREAP 
National Renewable Energy Action Plan 

OSB 
Oriented  Strand  Board  is  a  structural  board  in  which  layers  of  narrow  wafers  are 
layered alternately at right angles in order to give the board greater elastomechanical 
properties.  The  wafers,  which  resemble  small  pieces  of  veneer,  are  coated  with  e.g. 
waterproof phenolic resin glue, interleaved together in mats and then bonded together 
under  heat  and  pressure.  The  resulting  product  is  a  solid,  uniform  building  panel 
having high strength and water resistance. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume. 
(FAOSTAT) 

August 2014  9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Particleboard 
Particleboard  is  a  panel  manufactured  from  small  pieces  of  wood  or  other  ligno-
cellulosic materials (e.g. chips, flakes, splinters, strands, shreds, shaves, etc.) bonded 
together  by  the  use  of  an  organic  binder  together  with  one  or  more  of  the  following 
agents:  heat,  pressure,  humidity,  a  catalyst,  etc.  The  particle  board  category  is  an 
aggregate category, including for example oriented strandboard (OSB). (FAOSTAT) 

Plywood 
Plywood  is  a  panel  consisting  of  an  assembly  of  veneer  sheets  bonded  together  with 
the direction of the grain in alternate plies generally at right angles. The veneer sheets 
are usually placed symmetrically on both sides of a central ply or core that may itself 
be made from a veneer sheet or another material. It excludes laminated construction 
materials  (e.g.  glulam),  where  the  grain  of  the  veneer  sheets  generally  runs  in  the 
same direction. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume. (FAOSTAT) 

Production capacity 
Production capacity is the volume of products  that can be generated  by a production 
plant or enterprise in a given time period by using current machinery. Several factors 
e.g.  lack  of  raw  materials  can  cause  the  actual  production  to  remain  below  the 
maximum production capacity. 

Recovered wood 
Recovered wood includes all kinds of wood material which, at the end of its life cycle in 
wooden  products,  is  made  available  for  re-use  or  recycling.  Re-use  can  be  either  for 
material  purposes  or  energy  production.  This  group  mainly  includes  used  packaging 
materials, wood from demolition projects, unused or scrap timber from building sites, 
and  parts  of  wood  from  residential,  industrial  and  commercial  activities.  Sometimes 
referred as “post-consumer” or “post-use” wood.  

Recovery 
According  to  Article  3(15)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  (2008/98/EC)  recovery 
means ‘any operations the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose 
by  replacing  other  materials  which  would  otherwise  have  been  used  to  fulfil  that 
function, in the plant or in the wider economy.’ 

Recycling 
According  to  Article  3(17)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  (2008/98/EC)  recycling 
means  ‘any  recovery  operation  by  which  waste  materials  are  reprocesses  into 
products,  materials  or  substances  whether  for  the  original  or  other  purposes.  It 
includes reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the 
reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels of for backfilling operations.’ 

Residential Wood Pellets 
Residential  wood  pellets  are  manufactured  from  clean  by-products  of  sawmilling 
industry (sawdust, chips, and shavings); according to strict standards in terms of size, 
shape, cleanliness and moisture content (i.e. EN 14961). They are used in small scale 
wood pellet heating applications requiring uniform quality of fuel. 

Residue-to-crop ratio 
Describes  the  ratio  of  the  amount  of  residues  resulting  from  crop  production  and  the 
amount of crops produced. 

August 2014  10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Roundwood 
Roundwood  is  an  aggregate  comprising  of  felled  or  otherwise  harvested  and  removed 
wood, with or without bark. It includes sawlogs and veneer logs; pulpwood, round and 
split; and other industrial roundwood. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume. 

Sawnwood 
Wood that has been produced from both domestic and imported roundwood, either by 
sawing  lengthways  or  by  a  profile-chipping  process  and  that  exceeds  6  mm  in 
thickness.  It  includes  planks,  beams,  joists,  boards,  rafters,  scantlings,  laths, 
boxboards  and  "lumber",  etc.,  in  the  following  forms:  unplaned,  planed,  end-jointed, 
etc. It excludes sleepers, wooden flooring, mouldings (sawnwood continuously shaped 
along  any  of  its  edges  or  faces,  like  tongued,  grooved,  rebated,  V-jointed,  beaded, 
moulded, rounded or the like) and sawnwood produced by re-sawing previously sawn 
pieces. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume (FAOSTAT). 

Sewage sludge 
According  to  Article  2(a)  of  the  Directive  on  sewage  sludge  used  in  agriculture 
(86/278/EEC)  sludge  is  ‘  i)  residual  sludge  from  sewage  plants  treating  domestic  or 
urban  waste  waters  and  from  other  sewage  plants  treating  waste  waters  of  a 
composition  similar  to  domestic    and  urban  waste  waters;  ii)  residual  sludge  from 
septic  tanks  and  other  similar  installations  for  the  treatment  of  sewage;  iii)  residual 
sludge from sewage plants other than those referred to in i) and ii).’ 

Short Rotation Forestry/Short Rotation Coppice 
Short  rotation  forestry  (SRF)  is  defined  as  tree  plantations  established  and  managed 
under  an  intensive,  short  rotation  regime.  They  can  be  established  with  quickly 
growing  tree  species  such  as  poplar,  willow  and  eucalypt.  The  plantations  have 
rotation  cycles  of  8  to  20  years  (for  single-stemmed  trees)  or  they  can  be  managed 
under a coppice system in a two-to-four-year rotation (Short Rotation Coppice, SRC). 

Softwood 
Softwood  generally  refers  to  all  coniferous  woods  derived  from  trees  classified 
botanically  as  Gymnospermae,  e.g.  Abies  spp.,  Araucaria  spp.,  Cedrus  spp., 
Chamaecyparis  spp.,  Cupressus  spp.,  Larix  spp.,  Picea  spp.,  Pinus  spp.,  Thuja  spp., 
Tsuga spp., etc. (FAOSTAT) 

Textile waste 
Textile waste consists of all kinds of textile and leather material which are discarded. 
This  includes  used  packaging,  worn  clothes  and  used  textiles,  and  waste  from 
fibre/leather  preparation  and  processing,  as  well  as  separately  collected  textile  and 
leather. 

Torrefaction 
Torrefaction is a pre-treatment technology where the biomass is slowly heated to 240-
300 C° in the absence of oxygen. The treatment degrades the biomass into a coal-like 
product  without  major  fibrous  structure,  making  it  easy  to  grind.  The  torrefied 
biomass  has  a  calorific  value  of  19-23  MJ/kg  and  a  high  energy  density.  Torrefied 
wood pellets are sometimes called “black pellets” or “pelletized biocoal”.  

Waste 
The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) defines waste ‘any substance or object 
which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard’. 

August 2014  11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

(Waste) prevention 
According to Article 3(12) of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) prevention 
means  ‘measures  taken  before  a  substance  material  or  product  has  become  waste, 
that  reduce  a)  the  quantity  of  waste  […];  b)  the  adverse  impacts  of  the  generated 
waste on the environment and human health; or c) the content of harmful substances 
in materials and products.’ 

Wood Based Panels 
This  product  category  is  an  aggregate  comprising  veneer  sheets,  plywood,  particle 
board, and fibreboard. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume. (FAOSTAT) 

Wood chips 
Wood  chips  are  wood  that  has  been  reduced  to  small  pieces  and  can  be  used  for 
material  production  or  as  a  fuel.  For  pulping,  particle  board  and/or  fibreboard 
production,  the  chips  need  to  be  debarked,  for  fuel  use  the  wood  chips  may  contain 
bark.  

Wood pellets 
Wood pellets are refined wood fuels traditionally made of clean industrial by-products 
of the mechanical wood industry, mainly wood chips, sawdust and/or shavings. Wood 
pellets  are  cylinder  shaped  and  their  diameter  varies  between  6  -  8  mm  and  length 
between 10 - 30 mm. The heat value of one kilogram of pellets correspond almost half 
a litre of light fuel oil. Unlike other wood based commodities (sawnwood, wood based 
panels)  the  production,  consumption  or  traded  volumes  of  wood  pellets  are  usually 
reported in tonnes. In trade of wood pellets price reference is commonly set per tonne 
of pellets. 

August 2014  12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

1 Introduction 

Bioenergy  demand  in  the  EU  is  increasing,  affecting  biomass  resource  availability  as 
well  as  creating  competition  for  biomass  resources.  Further  investigation  is  needed 
especially  on  the  interactions  between  the  bioenergy  sector  and  other  sectors 
competing  for  the  same  raw  materials,  and  the  environmental  impacts  of  bioenergy 
use.  This  is  important  for  the  economy  as  a  whole,  for  safeguarding  the  ecosystem 
services  that  the  landscape  provides,  and  for  ensuring  material  use  in  a  way  that  is 
most  beneficial  for  reaching  overall  climate  mitigation  targets.  Biomass  types  should 
be  allocated  to  industries  so  that  that  individual  industry  segments  can  best  benefit 
them  in  terms  of  their  technical  suitability,  added  value,  and  employment  potential. 
Efficiency in the use of biomass is also important for environmental reasons, as there 
is only a limited amount of biomass sources available. 

Study on impacts  on  resource  efficiency of future  EU demand for bioenergy develops 
different future trajectories of increased use of bioenergy in the EU, and analyses their 
impacts  on  resource  efficiency,  natural  resources  and  the  environment.  In  order  to 
understand the current basis  for possible resource efficiency implications, this Task 1 
report provides an in-depth analysis of the current standpoint in terms of production, 
trade  and  demand  of  biomass  in  the  EU  with  its  linkages  to  the  global  biomass  use. 
The report includes three chapters looking into different angles around the topic: 

EU  state  of  play  in  biomass  use  illustrates  the  supply  and  demand  situation  of  three 
main  categories  of  biomass:  wood  biomass,  agricultural  biomass  and  biogenic  waste. 
Within each category, a detailed examination of various types of biomass is presented. 
For every major biomass type, an overview of the supply and demand situation within 
the EU is presented, as well as relationships between the energy and  material use of 
particular  biomass  types.  The  chapter  includes  also  a  description  of  the  current 
standpoint in the utilization of energy conversion methods and pathways. 

Global  supply  and  demand  of  biomass  looks  into  biomass  use  from  the  global 
perspective  and  aims  to  identify  consumption  hot-spots.  This  is  important  because 
biomass  commodities  are  increasingly  traded  on  a  global  level  and  having  an 
increasing  effect  on  the  biomass  raw  material  balance  and  prices  in  the  EU.  The 
chapter  illustrates  major  trade  flows  and  trends  of  most  important  biomass 
commodities within the EU and globally. 

Costs  and  prices  of  biomass  are  strongly  linked  to  biomass  availability.  This  chapter 
provides  insight  to  the  production  costs  by  assessing  different  biomass  supply  chain 
alternatives  and  explaining  the  drivers  of  cost  development.  An  outlook  of  biomass 
market  prices  is  also  provided  in  this  chapter,  displaying  price  trends  and  drivers  for 
major biomass fuels in different regions within the EU. 

The  purpose  of  this  Task  1  report  is  also  to  provide  data  for  ensuring  well  calibrated 
results  and  robust  results  in  the  further  tasks  of  the  Study.  In  addition,  related 
information gaps and needs for further research will be identified in the report. 

This study will give an in-depth view on affecting factors and issues related to biomass 
consumption  in  the  EU  in  three  main  biomass  types:  wood  biomass,  agricultural 
biomass  and  biogenic  waste.  Biomass  consumption  is  observed  from  two  points  of 
view: biomass refining for material purposes and for energy. Links between these two 
consumption  types  have  become  a  vital issue.  Questions  related  to  resource  efficient 
allocation of raw materials between these two options have gained high priority status 
as the EU is aiming to reach the targets for renewable energy use up to 2020. 

August 2014  13 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

The main driver for using biomass for energy is the RES (Renewable Energy Sources) 
directive (2009/28/EC). Directive 2009/28/EC  also requires  the EU Member States to 
adopt a national renewable energy action plan (NREAP). These plans have to indicate 
in detail how the national targets will be reached, including energy sources and uses, 
as well as their trajectories up to 2020. 

In 2012, bioenergy constituted two-thirds of the renewable energy consumption in the 
EU  (Figure  1).  The  largest  source  for  bioenergy  was  solid  biomass,  which  provided 
almost  half  of  the  total  renewable  energy  consumed.  The  share  of  municipal  waste 
was almost 5%, and biogas and liquid biofuels together about 15% of the total use of 
renewable energy. 

Figure 1 

Consumption of different types of renewable energy in EU28 in 2012 

Source: Eurostat 2014 

According  to  the  progress  reports  of  the  NREAPS,  in  2010  about  75%  of  the  total 
95 Mtoe of biomass used for energy is utilized in heat production (Figure 2). According 
to  NREAP  targets,  heat  will  remain  as  major  final  use  due  2020  (65%)  but  the 
transport sector (14% in 2010) is expected to cover about 21% of biomass utilization 
in  2020  (Figure  3).  If  the  NREAP  targets  are  actualized  the  total  consumption  of 
biomass for bioenergy purposes will be 138 Mtoe. 

August 2014  14 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 2 

Biomass energy carriers in heat, transport biofuels and electricity 
production, and 2020 targets 

e
o
t
M

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Gap to target

Biodiesel

Bioethanol

Bioliquids

Biogas

Solid biomass

Heat

Transport

Electricity

Source: NREAPs 

Majority  of  currently  used  biomass  is  solid  biomass.  In  2010  almost  80%  of  biomass 
utilized  in  the  EU  was  solid  (Figure  4).  According  to  the  plans  set  by  the  NREAP  the 
share  of  solid  biomass  will  be  68%.  Share  of  bioethanol,  bioliquids  and  biogas  will 
increase  marginally.  Bioproducts  (bioliquids  and  biogas)  are  fast  growing  market 
segments; however the bulk of the biomass use will be originated from solid biomass 
as  such  and  will  continue  to  be  the  major  energy  carrier.  The  major  share  of  solid 
biomass used for heat production can be largely explained by the net energy ratio of 
different energy production alternatives. 

August 2014  15 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 3 

Use of biomass in heating, electricity and transport sectors in the EU 
according to NREAPs 

e
o
t
M

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2010 Progress report

2020 NREAP

Source: NREAPs 

Figure 4 

Shares of utilized energy carriers in the EU 

e
o
t
M

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Electricity

Transport

Heat

Biodiesel

Bioethanol

Bioliquids

Biogas

Solid biomass

2010

2020 NREAP

Source: NREAPs 

Even  though  the  NREAP’s  are  legally  binding  targets  for  the  Member  States  the 
fulfilment  of  these  country  specific  targets  are  not  certain.  An  assessment  of  the 
biomass use situation can be seen in the NREAP progress reports for 2010. The recent 
development  forecast  whether  the  renewable  energy  targets  will  be  reached  is  not 

August 2014  16 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

clear, let alone the consequent impact on biomass used for material purposes. This is 
the  macro-level  viewpoint  to  the  biomass  use  for  energy  in  the  EU.  The  following 
chapters  include  detailed  examination  of  tree  main  biomass  types  used  in  the  EU: 
wood biomass, agricultural biomass and biogenic waste. 

August 2014  17 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

2 EU state of play 

2.1 Wood biomass 

2.1.1 Total wood consumption in the EU 

The EU has traditionally been a major producer, consumer and trader of wood biomass 
for  a  broad  range  of  wood  based  products  as  well  as  bioenergy.  The  use  and 
availability  of  various  wood  raw  material  types  for  the  wood  consuming  industries  is 
interlinked. They form a conglomerate of different streams depending economically on 
each  other,  not  only  from  the  availability  of  wood  raw  material  point  of  view  of,  but 
also logistics. 

The  inter-relationships  between  the  different  wood  consuming  sectors  have  usually 
been  in  balance  within  a  particular  country.  This  means  that  in  wood  raw  material 
allocation  sawmills  supply  sawlogs  and  pulpwood  is  used  in  pulp  making  or  wood 
based panels manufacturing. In general best quality by-product streams of mechanical 
wood  products  industry  have  been  directed  to  wood  based  panels’  production  and 
lower  qualities  to  energy  use  as  such.  However,  this  traditionally  balanced  situation 
has changed as the major energy producers are reaching for more wood. 

The single issue affecting the use of wood raw material in most of the EU is renewable 
energy.  Member  States  are  expected  to  reach  their  binding  national  2020  targets  for 
renewable energy in electricity generation, heating and  transport. For Member States 
to more than double their total renewable energy generation by 2020, from the level 
of  2005,  there  will  be  a  huge  impact  on  the  use  of  wood  raw  material  along  other 
types of biomass. In this development pulp and paper as well as woodworking industry 
companies have also  started to act as biomass suppliers to the bio-energy sector.  In 
addition,  the  future  plans  for  bio-diesel  plants  (from  bio-refineries)  are  based  on 
substantial volumes of biomass, among others wood. 

Two recent studies, e.g. EUWood (2010)1 and Study on the Wood Raw Material Supply 
and Demand for the EU Wood-processing Industries2 (2013) have portrayed the wood 
raw  material  demand  between  the  material  and  energy  uses  and  the  interactions 
between  the  consuming  industries.  The  results  from  these  two  studies  serve  as  a 
standpoint  in  viewing  how  much  of  the  wood  raw  material  is  currently  allocated  to 
material and energy use. 

Table 1 shows the consumption of wood estimated in the EUWood and Indufor’s study. 
In  Indufor’s  study  it  was  estimated  that  the  total  wood  raw  material  use  was  942 
million  m³  RWE  (roundwood  equivalent).  About  31%  of  that  was  used  by  bioenergy 
sector. In the EUWood study the total wood consumption was estimated a bit lower, at 
825  million  m³  of  which  energy  use  consists  about  45%.  However  in  the  EU  Wood 
study in the demand of wood, sector specific consumption of particular wood type was 
not defined. The slightly larger share of wood consumption in bioenergy can be caused 
by the fact that the energetic use of wood is estimated by model (EFSOS) rather than 
actual consumption from statistical sources. Also, the EUWood study includes only raw 
wood  material  consumption  within  the  pulp  industry  whereas  the  Indufor’s  study 
includes also the consumption of recovered paper in the pulp and paper industry. 

1 Mantau, U. et al. 2010: EUwood – Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests. Final report. 
2  Indufor  2013:  Study  on  the  Wood  Raw  Material  Supply  and  Demand  for  the  EU  Wood  Processing 
Industries 

August 2014  18 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Table 1 

Wood demand by wood-consuming industries by EUWood and Indufor 
studies 

Study 

Reference year 

Total Wood Consumption 

  Total Material Use 

  Wood Products Industry 

  Pulp and Paper 

  Pulp 

  Total Energy Use 

  Wood products industry side streams 

  Primary energy use 

Energy use, % 

Material use, % 

EUWood 

2010 

Million m³ 

Indufor 

2011 

825 

457 

314 

143 

368 

45% 

55% 

942 

649 

308 

341 

293 

150 

143 

31% 

69% 

Another  recent study by Keränen & Alakangas (2013) has displayed total wood flows 
in the EU. Figure 5 extracted from the study explain the total wood used for energy is 
246 million m³. Energywood from primary sources, i.e. firewood and forest chips cover 
about 120 million m³ of total. This wood material is used directly as fuel and it has no 
other  use.  Slightly larger  part,  126  million  m³  of  wood  used  for  energy  is  a  result  of 
by-product flows of wood consuming industries. 

August 2014  19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 5 

Wood flows in Europe (EU27) in 2012 

Source: Keränen & Alakangas 2013 

These  recent  studies  give  somewhat  different  estimates  of  the  volumes  of  wood  raw 
material  allocated  between  energy  and  material  use,  caused  by  differences  in  study 
setting, scope and definition of consuming industries. Regardless, the studies highlight 
that the basis of all wood consumption, whether material or energy use, is the volume 
of roundwood harvested. Even though the total volume of virgin wood used in material 
purposes is greater than the volume used for energy, major amount of bioenergy from 
wood originates from forest industry side streams (industrial by-products, black liquor 
and  recovered  wood)  and  the  collection  of  the  forest  chips.  That  is,  bioenergy  raw 
material  supply  is  in  strong  connection  with  value  chain  of  sawlogs  and  pulpwood. 
Wood is also a potential raw material for liquid biorefinery products such as biodiesel, 
bioethanol  and  bio-oil.  The  following  sections  gives  and  outlook  to  the  supply  and 
demand of wood in material and energy uses. 

2.1.2 Supply and demand of wood in material use 

Based on a study by Indufor (2013) total wood raw material consumption of the EU27 
sawmill  and  wood  based  panels  industry  has  increased  by  38  million  m3  to  total 
300 million m³ between 2000 and 2011 and is expected to continue to grow although 
at  a  slower  pace  than  in  the  previous  10-year  period.  About  262  million  m³  of  total 
wood  consumption  in  these  sectors  consists  of  roundwood.  The  study  does  not 

August 2014  20 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

distinguish the wood consumption between the sectors, but majority of this volume is 
sawlog consumption in the sawmill industry. 

Sawnwood 

Total production of sawnwood in the EU27 was about 100 million m³ in 2011 (Figure 6 
and  Figure  7).  Softwood  dominates  the  sawnwood  market  in  terms  of  volume.  The 
production  of  softwood  sawnwood  is  increasing  gradually,  but  there  was  a  sharp 
decline after the year 2007. Softwood sawnwood production in the EU27 totalled about 
91 million m³ in 2011. 

Figure 6 

Sawnwood production in the EU27 in 2000-2011 

120

100

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

80

60

40

20

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: FAO Statistics Division 

Softwood

Hardwood

August 2014  21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 7 

Sawnwood production in the EU27 

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

14%

22%

17%

8%

10%

10%

Germany

Sweden

Austria

Finland

France

Czech Republic

Romania

Poland

Latvia

United Kingdom

Others

Total: 100 million m³

Source: FAO Statistics Division 2012 

The yearly production of hardwood sawnwood has been fairly stable in the EU over the 
years. In 2011 the production was 9 million m³. Major hardwood sawnwood producers 
are Romania, France and Germany. 

Sawmilling industry is in a key position at the start of the processing supply chain in 
this dynamic system, because sawlogs are usually the most valuable parts of the trees 
and hence often the most interesting ones from the wood sellers’ point of view. Their 
presence in the wood mix is often determinant in a forest owner’s decision to harvest 
wood  or  not.  If  sawlog  prices  are  low,  the  higher  prices  of  other  categories  cannot 
typically  offset  that.  To  get  the  market  of  wood  raw  material  running,  it  is  therefore 
extremely  important  that  sawmills  are  profitable  and  act  as  drivers  for  the 
downstream  wood  market.  This  brings  also  pulpwood  as  well  as  energy  wood  to  the 
market  and  other  forms  of  woodworking  industries,  pulp  and  paper  industries  and 
power  plants  can  benefit  from  this  as  well  as  from  the  industrial  wood-processing 
residues. 

Major  sawmilling  driver  is  the  construction  industry  in  the  EU  but  also  in  the  US. 
Before  the  major  economic  recession  especially  Germany  and  Austria  contributed  to 
the  growing  construction  segment  in  the  US.  This  market  decreased  radically  after 
2007  and  major  recovery  has  not  yet  realized.  The  Czech  Republic  is  expected  to 
contribute  to  the  recovering  US  housing  market.  Also  Poland  and  Romania  are 
expected  to  show  higher  annual  output  levels  possibly  based  on  new  production 
capacity. 

Wood Based Panels 

European wood based panel production was around 48 million m3 in 2011 (Figure 8). 
Particleboard  production  is  by  far  the  largest  segment,  accounting  for  almost  two 
thirds  of  the  total  panels  output,  followed  by  MDF,  OSB  and  plywood.  Wood  based 
panels  industry  products  are  consumed  in  furniture  and  carpentry  manufacturing, 

August 2014  22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

automotive and industrial packaging as well as construction industry. Trends of these 
industry subsectors largely define the development of wood based panels demand. 

Figure 8 

European wood-based panels production in 2011 

5%

8%

24%

Particleboard

MDF

OSB

Plywood

63%

Total: 48 million m³

Source: 1) EPF Annual Report; 2) FEIC Annual Report 

European particleboard production was about 30 million m³ in 2011. Germany is both 
the  largest  producer  and  largest  consumer  of  particleboard  in  Europe.  Most  of  the 
trade  occurs  within  the  European  countries,  as  particleboard  is,  to  a  large  extent, 
consumed  by  European  industries  for  further  processing,  e.g.  into  furniture.  The 
transport  cost  for  a  product  like  particleboard  is  very  high  in  relation  to  its  price. 
European particleboard production is forecast to face a modest decline. 

MDF  is  produced  in  20  European  countries  with  an  overall  production  capacity  of 
around  15  million  m³  at  the  present.  According  to  the  European  Panel  Federation 
(EPF),  actual  MDF  output  amounted  to  about  11.7  million  m³  in  2011.  Overall 
production  increased  annually  in  the  beginning  of  the  decade  and  peaked  at  over  13 
million m³ in 2007, decreasing rapidly thereafter due to the economic turmoil. 

Germany is the largest MDF producer in the EU representing approximately one third 
of the overall European MDF output. Following the capacity expansions during the last 
couple  of  years,  Poland  has  emerged  as  the  second  largest  MDF  producer  country  in 
Europe. France and Italy are the other significant MDF producers in Europe. 

European  OSB  production  is  estimated  at  3.6  million  m³  in  2011.  OSB  production 
expanded  rapidly  after  it  started  in  Europe  in  the  mid-90s;  growth  rates  were  in  the 
double digits until 2007. OSB production is still fairly concentrated in a few companies 
in eleven European countries. Germany is the leading OSB producer in the EU27 area 
followed by Poland and the Czech Republic. 

The  production  of  plywood  in  the  EU27  amounted  to  about  2.4  million  m³  in  2011, 
approximately the same as in the previous year. However, the current production level 
is  about  1  million  m³  less  than  in  2007.  EU27  production  is  expected  to  increase  by 

August 2014  23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

about 7% by 2016 which would still well be below the levels recorded in the first half 
of the previous decade. 

According to the European Federation of Plywood Industry (FEIC), Finland is by far the 
largest plywood producer in the  EU27 representing approximately 40%  of the overall 
production. Italy, Spain, France and Latvia are the other significant producer countries 
where the annual production exceeds 200 000 m³/a. 

The wood based panels sector is in direct competition for wood raw material with the 
bio-energy  sector.  Whilst  bio-energy  can  use  low-quality  forest  residues,  this  is  not 
the  case  for  wood-based  panels,  for  which  a  higher  quality  is  required  for  the  wood 
chips  and  particles  used  in  panel  making.  Both  sectors  use  huge  quantities  of 
industrial  wood-processing  residues,  mostly  produced  by  sawmills,  and  the  price  will 
determine who gets the material. 

Pulp and Paper 

The total wood raw material usage of the pulp and paper industry in the EU27 in 2011, 
was  approximately  341  million  m³  (RWE)  of  wood,  imported  pulp  and  recovered 
paper.  Recovered  paper  and  roundwood  are  the  two  main  raw  material  types 
consisting  of  about  145  million  m³  (42%)  and  96  million  m³  (28%)  of  the  total  raw 
material  consumption.  The  structural  change  among  the  different  wood  raw  material 
types  used  for  pulp  and  paper  is  foreseen  to  continue.  The  use  of  roundwood  is 
expected to decline whereas the use of the recovered paper is set to increase. 

Most  of  the  pulp  produced  in  the  EU27  is  chemical  fibre  (Figure  9).  The  production 
level in 2000 was on the  same level as in 2011, but it was  still 10%  below the peak 
level  in  2006.  Production  of  chemical  pulp  in  Central  Europe  is  expected  to  slowly 
decrease as some of the paper producers switch to imported eucalyptus pulp. However 
in the Nordic countries, major industry companies Metsä Group, UPM and Södra have 
announced  new  projects  in  building  up  the  chemical  pulp  capacity.  This  capacity 
increase is based mainly on increasing demand of spruce pulp in Chinese market. 

August 2014  24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 9 

Production of wood pulp by grades in EU27 in 2000-2011 

30,000

25,000

20,000

s
e
n
n
o
t
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Chemical Pulp

Dissolving Pulp

Mechanical Pulp

Semi-Chemical Pulp

Source: FAO Statistics Division 

Consumption  of  wood  pulp  mainly  follows  the  production  of  paper  (Figure  10).  In 
average  slightly  less  than  50%  of  all  pulp  in  paper  manufactured  in  the  EU  is  virgin 
pulp, and the percentage is slowly decreasing. The main reason for the decrease is the 
improved characteristics of the pulp produced. Less pulp is sufficient. The pulp mills do 
tailor pulp grades for the paper machines they supply pulp for. The trend is expected 
to continue. 

Figure 10 

Wood pulp consumption by grades EU27 2000-2011 

s
e
n
n
o
t
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Source: FAO Statistics Division 

Chemical  Pulp

Dissolving  Pulp

Mechanical  Pulp

Semi-Chemical  Pulp

August 2014  25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Paper and Board 

The total paper consumption in the EU27 was 80.5 million tonnes in 2011 (Figure 11). 
During the economic the recession consumption fell by 14% (2007-2009). By the end 
of 2010 the consumption had was equal to that of 2000, but was still 9.5% below the 
2007 level. 

Figure 11 

The largest consumers of paper and paperboards in EU27 (2011) 

2%

3%

5%

4%

6%

8%

10%

25%

13%

12%

12%

Germany

Italy

United Kingdom

France

Spain

Poland

Netherlands

Belgium

Austria

Sweden

Others

Total: 80.5 mill. tonnes

Source: FAO Statistics Division 

Figure 12 

Paper and paperboard consumption by grades EU27 (2000-2011) 

e
s
n
n
o
t
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: FAO Statistics Division 

Total

Newsprint

P & W

Hygienic

Others

Packaging

August 2014  26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Several trends affecting the general consumption of paper in the EU can be identified. 
Printed  media  is  competing  with  digital  media  with  an  impact  on  both  newsprint  and 
printing and writing grades. Demand for many of the graphic grades of paper, such as 
newsprint,  magazine  and  office  papers  is  in  long-term,  gradual  but  steady  decline, 
except  for  some  relatively  small  growth  which  may  continue  in  the  new  EU  member 
states. 

In packaging the trend has two sides: while some consumers want less packaging and 
food grown in the neighbourhood, in general more and better packaging is needed to 
decrease the loss of food in transportation. In packaging of goods the package itself is 
still an important media for marketing and getting the customer to select one from a 
row of competing products in the shop. 

Paper  consumption  is  still  growing  in  countries  having  joined  the  EU  more  recently. 
However,  the  consumption  levels  of  printing  and  writing  papers  and  newsprint  per 
capita will not grow to  the same level as the  consumption in the old Member States, 
as it is more practical to move faster to the digital media. 

In  hygienic  papers  the  trend  in  the  EU  is  basically  towards  more  fibre  consumption. 
For  some  products,  such  as  industrial,  demand  correlates  to  the  strength  of  the 
economy and fluctuates with recession and recovery. 

In  general  pulp  is  still  produced  close  to  the  forest  resources  and  paper  close  to  the 
consumers.  On  the  other  hand  international  competition  affects  to  the  availability  of 
fibre  raw  materials  in  the  EU.  Costs  of  pulpwood  and  pulping  are  much  lower  in 
developing economies (e.g. Brazil) than in Europe. Though Europe reaches the world’s 
highest  levels  of  paper  recovery  and  recycling,  much  of  that  material  is  set  to  be 
exported,  while  the  recovered  fibre  available  in  Europe  will  have  a  lower  average 
quality because of less high-quality graphic paper being manufactured and recovered. 

August 2014  27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

2.1.3 Supply and demand of wood in energy production 

Firewood 

The term firewood consists of wood that is harvested from forest of other wooded land 
and used in small dwellings for simple heating applications such as fireplaces, ovens or 
log boilers. Firewood is usually used in form of split logs. 

Major  use  of  firewood  exists  in  the  EU.  Establishing  accurate  number  of  utilization  is 
difficult  because  it  often  does  not  show  in  statistics  or  is  mixed  in  general  energetic 
use  of  wood.  According  to  statistics  compiled  from  FAOSTAT,  Joint  Wood  Energy 
Enquiry (JWEE) and National Statistics, about 105 million m³ of roundwood is used as 
source  of  energy  in  the  EU  (2011)  (Figure  13  and  Figure  14).  If  compared  to  total 
roundwood  demand  estimated  by  the  study  by  Indufor  the  use  of  firewood  consists 
about 23% of total raw wood demand (454 million m³ in 2011). According to FAOSTAT 
the total roundwood removals in 2011 in EU27 was 429 million m³. If compared to this 
figure, firewood consists about 24% of roundwood removals. 

FAOSTAT numbers of firewood (fuelwood) include uncertainty because they may also 
include  chipped  wood.  Data  from  JWEE  can  be  considered  somewhat  more  reliable 
because  it  is  based  on  collection  and  quality  control  completed  by  working  group  of 
several  national  forest  resources,  wood  energy  and  waste  experts  in  particular 
countries. National statistics or JWEE data was primarily used and FAO figure if neither 
was  available.  Supposedly  major  part  of  the  firewood  consumption  is  based  on 
procuring wood locally from own or neighbouring forest and is consumed in residential 
fireplaces.  In  this  case  firewood  does  not  end  up  to  open  markets  and  thus  not 
recorded  into  accounts  or  statistics.  This  makes  the  data  related  to  firewood 
consumption uncertain and it should be considered only as a ballpark figure. 

Based  on  the  data,  major  consumers  of  firewood  are  Germany,  France  Finland, 
Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Spain,  Poland  and  Sweden.  These  countries  have  strong 
tradition of household wood fuel consumption. This is the case especially in rural areas 
with abundant resource of wood that is not meeting quality requirements of industrial 
utilization  and  is  freely  available  for  forest  owners.  Insufficient  energy  (district 
heating)  infrastructure  drives  the  utilization  of  firewood  in  some  East-European 
countries such as Romania and Bulgaria. 

August 2014  28 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 13 

Consumption of firewood in EU27 major consuming countries 

120

100

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

80

60

40

20

0

Others

Latvia

Romania

Sweden

Poland

Spain

Czech Republic

Austria

Finland

France

Germany

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source: Joint Wood Energy Enquiry, FAOSTAT  

Figure 14 

Consumption of firewood in EU27 major consuming countries (2011) 

19%

23%

3%

4%

4%

5%

5%

20%

5%

5%

7%

Germany

France

Finland

Austria

Czech Republic

Spain

Poland

Sweden

Romania

Latvia

Others

Total: 105 Million m³

Source: Joint Wood Energy Enquiry, FAOSTAT 

Firewood  has  little  significance  as  internationally  traded  commodity.  Most  of  the 
firewood is traded in domestic markets, and about 3.4 million m³ of firewood is traded 
in the EU annually, mostly between neighbouring countries.  

Although  the  firewood  consumption  in  small  scale  stoves  and  fireplaces  is  one  of  the 
oldest  ways  of  providing  heat  it  seems  to  remain  popular  in  the  EU.  In  major 

August 2014  29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

consuming countries household consumption of firewood is often a secondary heating 
solution  in  the  areas  that  can  be  accessed  by  district  heating  network.  Although  the 
use  of  firewood  in  space  heating  may  be  the  only  solution  in  distant  rural  areas  the 
overall energy  efficiency of small scale firewood consumption is low in comparison to 
established district heating or pellet heating solutions. As such, the potential in the EU 
to  expand  the  use  of  highly  efficient  units  is  high.  There  is  ongoing  discussion  about 
negative health effects of firewood use because of small particles resulted from wood 
combustion. It remains to be seen if this has a major negative impact on the firewood 
consumption. 

Forest chips1,3,4 

Forest  chips  are  becoming  an  important  wood  resource  for  energy  production  in 
Europe. Forest chips are fresh wood chips made of wood being harvested directly from 
the  forest,  used  for  energy  production,  and  has  not  had  any  previous  industrial  use. 
There are currently several raw material types of forest chips:  

  Tops and branches removed from trees during final felling 
  Sawlogs that are rejected being unsuitable for material purposes due to decay etc. 
  Small-size whole trees or stems 
  Pulpwood size logs allocated to energy production 
  Tree stumps. 

Forest chips can be used in various energy use applications varying from single house 
heating  to  different  scales  of  district  heating  and  industrial  scale  combined  heat  and 
power production (CHP) plants. In Finland and Sweden major volumes of forest chips 
are  consumed  in  large  scale  CHP  installations.  In  Central  Europe  utilization  of  forest 
chips has more local character.  It represents a significant local resource for heat and 
electricity production in areas with large forest resources, often located in areas with 
cold  climate  and/or  high  altitude  and  decentralized  space  heating  infrastructure.  In 
terms of international trade of biomass, forest chips have less significance due to their 
relatively high moisture content, low density and challenges in long term storage. 

Use of forest chips made of tops and branches and small diameter stemwood is tightly 
integrated  in  industrial  roundwood  supply.  Typically  forest  chip  raw  material  can  be 
harvested with similar machinery as industrial roundwood plus the chipper. Also large 
volumes  of  forest  chips  are  sourced  from  areas  used  for  industrial  roundwood 
production. This is the case especially in the Nordic countries where tops and branches 
are  collected from  final felling sites after harvesting of sawlogs and pulpwood. Forest 
chip  raw  material  is  also  collected  from  thinning  operations  in  young  and  mid  aged 
forest stands aside with pulpwood harvest. In Central Europe, proportion of stemwood 
used  as  forest  chip  raw  material  is  higher  due  to  smaller  use  of  roundwood  as  pulp 
raw material. Currently the main raw material of forest chips in most of the countries 
is  tops  and  branches  because  they  are  readily  available  in  piles  after  final  felling 
making  them  in  economic  terms  the  cheapest  and  most  profitable  forest  chip  raw 
material.  In  the  near  future  a  shift  towards  increasing  use  of  stemwood  is  expected, 
because further volume expansion will require broadening the raw material basis. Cost 
efficient  supply  of  forest  chips  require  well  developed  road  infrastructure,  purpose 
designed harvesting and chipping technology and well organized logistics. 

3 Asikainen A. et al. 2008. Forest energy potential in Europe (EU27). Working Papers of the Finnish Forest 
Research institute 69 
4  Diaz  Yanez,  O  et  al.  2013.  Forest  Chips  for  Energy  in  Europe:  Current  Procurement  Methods  and 
Potentials. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 21 (2013) 

August 2014  30 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Several studies have made estimations of utilizable potential of forest chips. According 
to  Asikainen  et  al.  (2008)3,  Mantau  et  al.  (2010)1  and  Diaz  Yanez  et  al.  (2013)4  the 
technically  available  potential  vary  from  117  to  277  million  m³/a.  These  potentials 
include  all  forest  chip  raw  materials:  tops  and  branches,  stemwood  and  stumps.  In 
these studies the stemwood potential is described as incremental volume of stemwood 
that could be used to both energy and industrial purposes. 

Currently  the  total  consumption  of  forest  chips  in  the  EU27  is  estimated  at  about 
45 million m³/a (2011) (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Major consumers of forest chips in 
the  EU  are  Sweden  (10.5  million  m³/a,),  Germany  (9.0  million  m³/a),  Finland 
(7.5 million  m³/a)  and  Italy  (6.3  million  m³/a).  The  data  illustrate  strong  increasing 
trend  in  the  consumption  of  forest  chips  for  the  whole  EU  during  2007-2011.  The 
consumption  figures  are  based  on  compilation  of  statistics  gathered  from  national 
statistics and UNECE – Joint Wood Energy Enquiry. The dataset is scattered and some 
countries  lack  data.  Only  Finland  and  Sweden  provide  official  statistics  of  the  use  of 
forest  chips  that  can  be  considered  reliable.  The  figure  has  to  be  considered  as  a 
rough estimate giving direction of the use and trend in different countries.  

Figure 15 

Consumption of forest chips in EU27 

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2007

2009

2011

Latvia

Slovakia

Estonia

Austria

Lithuania

Others

United Kingdom

France

Denmark

Italy

Finland

Germany

Sweden

Source: National Statistics (Sweden, Finland), Joint Wood Energy Enquiry. Holzmarktbericht. Data missing for 
Romania, Slovenia, Spain.  

August 2014  31 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 16 

Major consumers of forest chips in EU27 (2011e) 

2%

2% 2% 2% 1%
2%

3%

4%

7%

14%

24%

20%

17%

Total: 45 Million m³

Sweden

Germany

Finland

Italy

Denmark

France

United Kingdom

Lithuania

Austria

Estonia

Slovakia

Latvia

Others

Source:  National  Statistics  (Sweden,  Finland),  Joint Wood  Energy  Enquiry.  Holzmarktbericht.    Data  missing 
for Romania, Slovenia, Spain. 

Figure  17  illustrates  the  development  of  forest  chips  consumption  in  three  major 
countries:  Sweden,  Germany  and  Finland.  The  consumption  of  forest  chips  has 
increased at a steady pace throughout the last ten years. In Finland and Sweden the 
national  targets  of  renewable  energy  and  related  investments  to  district  heating 
applications utilizing forest chips have been driving the increasing trend of forest chip 
consumption.  At  the  same  time  the  development  of  harvesting  and  chipping 
technology  and  improved  logistical  solutions  have  been  improving  the  cost  efficiency 
of the supply. The similar technological solutions have been applied in other European 
countries as well. 

August 2014  32 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 17 

Consumption of forest chips in Sweden, Germany and Finland 

12

11

10

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Sweden

Germany

Finland

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: Finnish Forest Research Institute, Skogsstyrelsen, JWEE. 

The  state  of  energy  infrastructure  in  particular  countries  defines  largely  the 
development of forest chip use. Countries  such as Finland, Sweden, Germany, Latvia 
and  Estonia  have  a  network  of  centralized  heat  and  power  production  facilities  to 
which  majority  of  houses  are  connected.  Larger  facilities  enable  the  use  of  lower 
quality forest chips with variable chip size, moisture content. Stumps can be generally 
used only in large scale industrial CHP plants. In these countries the most commonly 
used  supply  chain  is  the  roadside  chipping  chain  where  the  wood  is  chipped  at  the 
roadside and transported to the plant with a chip truck. 

In  countries  with  mainly  decentralized  space  heating  infrastructure  such  as  UK,  the 
district  heating  networks  are  considerably  smaller.  In  small  scale  applications  the 
combustion technology is usually grate boilers requiring good quality forest chips with 
uniform particle size, moisture content, low amount of needles and impurities. In this 
kind of situation chipping at the terminal or at the plant is favoured. 

Several  challenges  need  to  be  addressed  if  the  supply  of  forest  chips  is  targeted  to 
increase. As the supply increases the procurement of forest chips is expected to move 
to  areas  with  poorer  resources  and  longer  transport  distances.  Production  of  forest 
chips in energy production is highly dependent on public subsidies laid on the supply. 
The  end  product  has  relatively  low  added  value,  and  the  profitability  depends  how 
efficiently the production costs can be lowered by using efficient harvesting technology 
and  supply  organization.  Storage  management  in  supply  chain  will  become 
increasingly  important  factor  when  aiming  at  increased  utilization  of  forest  chips. 
Forest  chips  raw  material is  exposed  to  variable  weather  conditions  during  storing  at 
the  roadside  or  terminal.  Storing  of  forest  chips  affects  several  quality  attributes  of 
forest  chips.  In  industrial  raw  material  procurement  the  aim  has  been  in  maximizing 
the supply chain speed because  of freshness of roundwood being the most important 
quality attribute. In forest chips procurement, a correct (not necessarily fast) storage 
management that minimizes the moisture content, increases the value of forest chips. 
The  development  is  still  in  an  early  stage.  Correct  storage  management  applications 

August 2014  33 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

require  multidisciplinary 
relationships, logistics, ICT and meteorology. 

inputs 

including  e.g. 

information  of  wood  moisture 

Industrial by-products 

Industrial  by-products  include  mainly  wood  chips  (from  wood  processing  residues), 
sawdust  as  well  as  shavings,  trimmings  and  bark.  They  are  supplied  as  by-products 
available  in  proportions  from  the  processes  of  wood  products  industry,  mainly 
sawmilling but also wood based panels and joinery production. Industrial by-products 
have  to  be  clean  and  they  are  not  altered  by  any  chemical  process.  Wood  chips  and 
sawdust and shavings from planing are important raw materials for pulp, wood based 
panels  (Particleboard,  MDF/HDF)  and  wood  pellet  production  as  well  as  in  bioenergy 
production  as  such.  Bark  is  used  only  in  energy  production  usually  within  the 
processing facility. 

Flow  of  solid  by-products  from  wood  products  manufacturing  follow  the  trend  of 
sawnwood,  wood  based  panels,  and  joinery  production.  Figure  18  presents  the  total 
supply  of  sawdust,  chips  and  bark  as  by-product  of  wood  processing  industries  in 
2000,  2005  and  2010. The  supply  of  industrial  by-products  increased  throughout  the 
early  part  of  2000’s  up  to  2008  when  the  global  financial  crisis  caused  drop  of  wood 
products  manufacturing.  The  volumes  have  been  slowly  recovering  since  but  overall 
do not show an increasing trend as for other products such as wood chips. 

Figure 18 

Supply of sawdust, chips and bark in EU27 

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Sawdust

Chips

Bark

2000

2005

2010

Source: Indufor, Study on the Wood Raw Material Supply and Demand for the EU Wood-processing Industries 

Figure 19 shows the supply of sawdust, chips and bark supplied by individual member 
states  in  2010.  Germany  is  the  largest  supplier  of  industrial  by-products,  at  an 
estimated  volume  of  19.3  million  m³/a  of  wood  chips  and  sawdust.  Other  major 
suppliers  are  Sweden  (14.5  million  m³/a),  Austria  (10.4  million  m³/a),  Finland 
(9.0 million  m³/a)  and  France  (7.4  million  m³/a).  Major  suppliers  of  industrial  by-
products are also major consumers.  

August 2014  34 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 19 

Supply of sawdust, chips and bark by Member States in EU27 (2010) 

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Bark

Sawdust

Chips

Source: Indufor, Study on the Wood Raw Material Supply and Demand for the EU Wood-processing Industries 

Figure  20  illustrates  the  breakdown  of  major  supply  sources  and  consumption 
segments  of  industrial by-products.  Bark  is  not  included  in  the  figure  since  it is used 
only in energy production and does not have a competitive use. Otherwise wood chips 
and  sawdust  can  be  used  in  several  competing  segments;  mainly  pulp  production, 
wood  based  panels,  wood  pellets  or  energy  production  as  such.  Although  increasing 
shares  of  industrial  chips  and  sawdust  are  used  in  wood  pellet  production,  energetic 
use of them as such still exists. Presented figures are an estimate based on compiled 
data  from  several  different  statistics  and  studies.  The  reason  for  the  supply  and 
demand  figures  not  being  matching in  some  countries  is  the  variability  of  conversion 
factors used in several sources as well as the difference between the actual supply and 
volume of stock within a calendar year. 

An important observation can be deducted from the Figure 20. Almost all by-products 
are being used, and practically no unused volume of industrial by-products is available 
unless  production  volume  of  sawmilling  and  other  roundwood  consuming  industries 
increases.  In  Finland  and  Sweden,  major  volumes  of  wood  chips  are  used  in  pulp 
production. Germany, Poland and France use large shares of industrial by-products in 
wood  based  panels  manufacturing.  Four  countries  with  traditionally  large  forest 
industry sector, namely Germany, Sweden, Finland, and Austria use large volumes of 
industrial  by-products  for  energy  as  such.  In  Sweden,  Germany  and  Austria 
decreasing  volume  of  industrial  by-products  is  used  as  energy  directly  due  to 
increasing  raw  material  of  wood  pellet  production.  In  Finland  wood  pellet  production 
has  not  gained  equally  strong  position  in  domestic  markets.    In  Finland  the  export 
oriented wood pellet sector has lower wood paying capability in comparison to strong 
pulp industry sector. 

The  only  noted  country  with  untapped  resource  of  industrial  by-products  is  Romania. 
In Romania number of small local sawmills and wood products manufacturers produce 
goods  to  the  local  markets.  Small  companies  are  not  linked  to  further  processing 
facilities  and  have  no  other  option  than  dispose  the  by-products.  Only  larger  wood 

August 2014  35 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

products manufacturing facilities, mainly in Austrian and German ownership utilize the 
by-product streams in wood based panels or pellet production. 

Figure  21  shows  the  shares  of  industrial  by-product  consumption  by  end-use 
segments  in  the  whole  EU27.  Pulp  and  paper  sector  dominates  clearly,  holding  over 
1/3  of  the  market.  Wood  based  panels  are  the  second  largest  consuming  segment. 
The  volume  of  industrial  by-products  for  energy  as  such  and  as  wood  pellet  raw 
material was about same size in 2010. The present share of industrial by-products to 
pellet production has probably surpassed the direct energetic use because of increased 
production of wood pellets in the EU27. 

August 2014  36 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 20 

Supply and consumption of industrial by-products (excl. bark) in the 
EU27 (2010) 

Malta
Cyprus
Greece
Bulgaria
Luxembourg
Ireland
Denmark
Lithuania
Slovenia
Netherlands
Hungary
Latvia
Romania
Estonia
Belgium
Slovakia
Spain
Czech Republic
Italy
United Kingdom
Poland
Portugal
France
Austria
Finland
Sweden
Germany

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

5
0
Demand   - Supply
million m³

10

15

20

25

Chips

Sawdust

Net Trade

Pulp and Paper

Wood Based Panels

Energy Use as Such Wood Pellets

Sources: JWEE, European Panel Federation, FAOSTAT, AEBIOM European Bioenergy Outlook 2013, CEPI, 
VDP – Germany, Austropapier, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Skogsstyrelsen, Indufor, Study on the Wood 
Raw Material Supply and Demand for the EU Wood-processing Industries 

August 2014  37 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 21 

Consumption of industrial by-products (excl. bark) in the EU27 by end-use 
segment (2010) 

19%

19%

35%

Pulp and Paper

WBP

Energy Use as Such

Wood Pellets

27%

Total: 106 Million m³

Sources: JWEE, European Panel Federation, FAOSTAT, AEBIOM European Bioenergy Outlook 2013, CEPI, 
VDP – Germany, Austropapier, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Skogsstyrelsen, Indufor, Study on the Wood 
Raw Material Supply and Demand for the EU Wood-processing Industries 

Wood pellets5,6,7 

Wood pellets are refined wood fuels traditionally made of clean industrial by-products 
of the mechanical wood industry, mainly wood chips, sawdust and/or shavings. Pellets 
are used for energy production in variable applications. They can be used for  heating 
of  single  small-sized  dwellings,  competing  with  oil  and  electricity  heating  systems. 
Pellet  combustion  is  also  an  alternative  for  district  heating  stations  and  in  larger 
CHP/co-firing plants. Wood pellets can be burned as such but also co-combusted with 
other biomass in CHP plants and with coal in coal- and oil-fired pulverized combustion 
boilers.  Main  advantage  of  wood  pellets  compared  to  chips  is  the  lower  moisture 
content  and,  mainly,  higher  bulk  energy  density  which  makes  them  more 
advantageous when transport distances are long. 

EU is the biggest supplier and consumer of wood pellets in the world. Consumption of 
wood pellets has increased from 3.7 million tonnes to 13.4 million tonnes during 2005-
2012 (Figure 22). At the same time the production of pellets in the EU has increased 
from  3  million  tonnes  to  10.5  million  tonnes.  The  share  of  wood  pellet  imports  from 
outside the EU has increased and was about 20% in 2012. As shown in Figure 23, the 
biggest wood pellet consuming countries are Denmark (1.8 million tonnes),  Germany 
(1.7  million  tonnes),  UK  (1.7  million  tonnes),  Sweden  (1.5  million  tonnes),  Italy 
(1.4 million  tonnes),  and  Belgium  (1.3  million  tonnes).  These  countries  account  for 
about 70% of total wood pellet consumption in the EU. 

5 IEA Bioenergy – Task 40: Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade: Global Wood Pellet Industry Market 
and Trade Study 
6 Sikkema R. et al. 2011. The European wood pellet markets: current status and prospects for 2020 
7  Verhoest  C.,  Ryckmans  Y.  2012  Industrial  Wood  Pellets  Report.  Laborelec,  Gdf  Svez.  Supported  by 
Intelligent Energy Europe. 

August 2014  38 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

As  seen  in  Figure  22  the  European  wood  pellet  production  capacity  is  majorly 
underutilized. The reason for this is that domestic market of traditional raw materials 
of  wood  pellets  i.e.  industrial  by-products  has  been  saturated  to  the  point  where  no 
unutilized streams of sawdust or chips are available.  

Figure 22 

Production, consumption and production capacity of wood pellets in EU27 

s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source: AEBIOM European Bioenergy Outlook 2013.  

Figure 23 

Consumption of wood pellets in EU27 

s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2010

2011

2012

Source: AEBIOM European Bioenergy Outlook 2013. 

Production

Consumption

Production capacity

Others

Poland

Austria

France

Netherlands

Belgium

Italy

Sweden

United Kingdom

Germany

Denmark

August 2014  39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Pellet market can be distinguished to two main sections: residential wood pellets and 
industrial wood pellets. The division is necessary because the product characteristics, 
market dynamics, prices and production costs differ between the types. 

Residential Wood Pellets 

In the EU, the production of residential wood pellets is mainly integrated to sawmilling 
industry.  Residential  wood  pellets  are  manufactured  according  to  strict  standards  in 
terms  of  size,  shape,  cleanliness  and  moisture  content.  They  are  used  in  small  scale 
wood pellet heating applications requiring uniform quality of fuel. Trade of residential 
wood  pellets  is  local,  mainly  within  domestic  markets  or  between  neighbouring 
countries. 

In the Nordic countries and Central Europe, the production of residential wood pellets 
is  closely  linked  to  the  production  of  sawmills  providing  feedstock  residues  such  as 
sawdust  or  wood  shavings.  Traditionally,  conversion  of  by-products  to  wood  pellets 
generated an additional income stream and value added to low cost and low price side 
product.  The  situation  still  remains,  however  the  amount  of  independent  wood  pellet 
manufacturers has increased. Due to  recent increasing trend in closures  of a number 
of smaller sawmills the traditional raw material sources are more centrally available. 

Roundwood  is  not  used  as  residential  wood  pellet  raw  material  due  to  limited  wood 
paying capability of domestic wood pellet industries. Other wood consuming industries 
such  as  sawmills,  pulp  mills  and  wood  based  panels  manufacturers  have  generally 
better  wood  paying  capability  for  roundwood.  Residential  wood  pellet  manufacturers 
are able to secure raw material from sawmilling industry by product streams. 

Most of the residential wood pellets follow ENplus wood pellet standard which sets the 
characteristics for wood pellets in terms of technical characteristics (set by EN 14961) 
and transparency of the whole supply chain. About 3.5 million tonnes of wood pellets 
consumed in the EU (26% of total) are ENplus certified. 

Increasing  volumes  of  certified  residential  wood  pellets  are  manufactured  in  Eastern-
Europe  in  close  vicinity  of  sawmills  and  wood  product  manufacturing  facilities  owned 
by  West-European  companies.  This  production  is  largely  exported  to  consumer 
markets in Germany, Italy, Austria and Sweden. 

Industrial wood pellets 

Industrial  wood  pellets  are  mostly  made  of  virgin  wood  raw  materials  such  as 
roundwood.  Regions  that  have  major  industrial  wood  pellet  manufacturing  industries 
such  as  South-Eastern  US  and  Western  Russia  because  of  favourable  wood  biomass 
surplus  situation  in  these  areas.  The  wood  pellet  manufacturers  with  comparatively 
low wood paying capability are still able to purchase abundant wood raw material with 
low price due to minor or non-existent competition of roundwood resource.8 

Trade  flows  of  industrial  wood  pellets  are  global  and  this  market  has  developed 
primarily  as  a  result  of  public  incentives  to  biomass  power  and  heat  production. 
Consumption  of  industrial  wood  pellets  take  place  in  large  heat  and  electricity 
producing  facilities.  Two  main  large  scale  pellet  consuming  segments  exist:  co-firing 
and CHP production which both produce heat and electricity simultaneously. 

8 The Risk of Indirect Wood Use Change, Pöyry Management Consulting 2014 

August 2014  40 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Co-firing  is  a  primary  application  of  combusting  industrial  wood  pellets  together  with 
pulverized  coal  in  existing  coal  power  plants.  Biomass  co-firing  has  expanded  rapidly 
in recent years, particularly in northern EU, as it can be done with limited investment 
cost  and  efficiency  losses.  Typically  co-firing  enables  5-15%  mixture  of  wood  pellets 
combusted  with  coal;  however  with  equipment  modernization  or  by  using  torrefied 
wood  pellets,  40%  share  of  wood  pellets  is  possible.  Further  developments  and  pilot 
plants are still required before such high shares of co-firing would become standard. 

In  CHP  production  mixture  of  solid  biomass  is  combusted  together  by  using  various 
alternatives  of  combustion  technology  (e.g.  fluidized  bed  combustion,  fixed  bed 
combustion,  grate  furnace).  Fossil  and  biomass  fuels  with  variable  moisture  contents 
can be used simultaneously. In CHP plants wood pellets are combusted alongside with 
other biomass fuels. Future CHP applications allow majority of  fuel to  be biomass.  In 
Denmark,  Belgium,  Sweden,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  the  future  strategy  is  to 
move future industry projects towards full biomass plants. 

Market  of  industrial  wood  pellets  in  consumption  side is  highest  in  the  UK,  Denmark, 
Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Sweden.  Major  producers  of  industrial  wood 
pellets  in  the  EU  are  Germany,  Lithuania,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Portugal,  Finland  and 
Sweden.  

Large scale wood pellet consumers have gradually raised their requirements on pellet 
quality both in terms of technical characteristics and sustainability. This is a result  of 
requirements  of  subsidy  schemes  as  well  as  corporate  social  responsibility  (CSR) 
issues  that  the  investors  are  dealing  with.  This  sets  increasing  requirements  wood 
pellet  manufacturers  e.g.  in  Russia  to  source  sustainably  produced  (FSC-certified) 
wood pellet raw material. 

Figure  24  shows  the  consumption  of  wood  pellets  by  end-use  segments  in  major 
consuming  countries.  Pellet  consumption  in  the  CHP/Co-firing  segments  mainly 
consists  of  industrial  wood  pellets  use  in  the  above  explained  facility  types.  Wood 
pellet  consumption  in  district  heating  segment  refers  to  the  use  of  wood  pellets  in 
small  to  large  scale  facilities  producing  only  heat.  Here,  both  types  of  wood  pellets 
may be used. In residential heating, wood pellets are of residential quality because of 
higher  technical  requirements  related  to  size  and  quality,  caused  by  small  scale 
combustion equipment. 

The biggest consumer Denmark is a major importer of wood pellets. Imports originate 
from  the  Baltic  countries,  Portugal,  North  America  and  Russia.  About  1.3  million 
tonnes  of  industrial  wood  pellets  are  used  in  the  CHP  production,  however  Denmark 
has  also  notable  (0.5  million  tonnes)  markets  of  residential  scale  use  of  consumer 
wood  pellets.  In  Germany  the  wood  pellet  market  is  dominated  by  consumption  in 
residential  heating  segment.  Besides  the  consumption  of  domestically  produced 
residential  wood  pellets,  Germany  imports  major  volumes  from  East-European 
countries.  Wood  pellet  consumption  in  United  Kingdom,  Belgium  and  Netherlands  is 
concentrated in large scale co-firing facilities. Wood pellet markets in these countries 
are  highly  import  driven  and  are  mainly  sourced  from  North  America.  Sweden  is  the 
pioneer  in  wood  pellet  markets.  Wood  pellet  production  started  there  in  the  early 
1990’s  and  the  consumption  has  increased  steadily  since.  The  strong  status  of 
domestically  produced  pellets  in  residential  heating  but  also  in  district  heating 
segment  is  based  on  high  taxation  of  fossil  fuels,  which  has  enhanced  the 
competitiveness  of  wood  pellets  against  fossil  fuels.  In  Sweden  the  consumption  of 
industrial  wood  pellets  has  been  increasing  and  is  based  mainly  on  imported  wood 
pellets from Baltic countries and Russia. 

August 2014  41 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 24 

Consumption of wood pellets in main end-use segments in the EU27 (2012) 

s
e
n
n
o
t
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

CHP/Co-firing

District Heating

Residential Heating

Source: AEBIOM European Bioenergy Outlook 2013.  

Most  markets  of  residential  wood  pellets  in  the  EU  are  largely  self-sufficient.  In  the 
markets  of  residential  wood  pellets  the  subsidies  have  been  directed  to  support 
investments  in  small  scale  pellet  combustion  equipment.  This  is  the  case  e.g.  in 
Austria. This kind of subsidy system has generated stable market as the owners of the 
heating applications have been engaged to use wood pellets for longer period. 

Industrial wood pellet markets depend on the import of wood pellets from outside the 
EU27. According to Eurostat, import of wood pellets to EU from outside grew to about 
5.7  million  tonnes  in  2013.  Both  the  US  and  Canada  export  over  2  million  tonnes  of 
pellets  to  the  EU,  Russia  about  0.7  million  tonnes.  Most  of  the  exports  from  North 
America are going to the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark. Russian exports 
are targeted to Sweden and Denmark.  

Industrial wood pellet markets depend mainly on the establishment or abolishment of 
public  support  schemes.  In  large  scale  CHP  production,  feed  in  tariffs  and  market 
premiums  of  biomass  produced  electricity  keeps  up  the  competitiveness  of  wood 
pellets in comparison to coal. Policies have aimed securing the stable level of market 
price for energy produced from pellets by feed in tariffs or market premiums. So far, 
major  investments  in  large  wood  pellet  heating  plants  have  been  delayed  since  the 
investors do not have certainty of long term productivity of the projects. On the other 
hand,  industrial  pellet  markets  are  relatively  mature  compared  to  residential  wood 
pellet  markets,  because  of  their  advanced  storage  facilities  and  long  term  price 
setting. 

Due  to  limited  availability  of  traditional  wood  pellet  raw  materials  from  industrial  by-
products  pellet  producers  are  seeking  new  alternative  raw  materials  to  increase 
production.  Possible  feedstocks  include  industrial  roundwood,  clean  recovered  wood 
and  roundwood  from  short  rotation  forestry  plantations.  Some  producers,  such  as 
German  Pellets  GmbH,  are  already  using  chips  from  debarked  fresh  roundwood  in 
production  of  residential  wood  pellets.  Some  pellet  producers  are  integrating  their 

August 2014  42 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

feedstock  portfolio  by  aiming  for  either  long  term  forest  concession  leases  or  supply 
agreements with local forest owners. 

The  development  of  global  industrial  wood  pellet  market  can  already  be  detected  in 
the  increase  in  global  trade.  Further  developments  in  the  torrefaction  pre-treatment 
system  will  also  support  this  trend,  improving  the  long  term  storing  and  drying 
possibilities.  Consequently,  the  combination  of  pelletisation  and  torrefaction  of  wood 
biomass  can  be  expected  to  lead  to  a  new  commodity  in  global  biomass  trade. 
Especially  large  scale  pellet  plants  with  global  feedstock  supply  chains  will  most 
certainly  focus  on  the  production  of  torrefied  wood  pellets,  since  their  value  chain 
profits the most through torrefaction. 

The  EU  demand  could  range  between  20-50  million  tonnes  by  2020,  depending  to  a 
large extent on two factors: a) the policies on co-firing in amongst others the UK, the 
Netherlands, Germany, and Poland, and b) on the price of heating oil and the related 
attractiveness  to  switch  to  wood  pellets  for  small  scale  users  (households  and 
medium-sized residential buildings). 

Recovered wood9,10 

Recovered wood includes all kinds of wood material which, at the end of its life cycle in 
wooden products, is made available for re-use or recycling. This group mainly includes 
used  packaging  materials,  wood  from  demolition  projects,  unused  or  scrap  timber 
from  building  sites,  and  parts  of  wood  from  residential,  industrial  and  commercial 
activities. 

The  general  increased  interest  in  recycling  of  materials  as  well  as  their  energy 
utilisation has put pressure on expanding the use of European resources of recovered 
wood. Due to the lack of effective and established collection and sorting systems and 
clear and consistent legislation full potential of recovered wood not unutilised in many 
European countries. 

Few estimates of total available potential of recovered wood exist. The EU total wood 
fraction  of  municipal  solid  waste,  such  as  discarded  furniture  or  renovation  debris, 
amounts  to  26  million  tonnes  per  year.11  The  available  potential  of  post-consumer 
wood for energy production is assumed to be 18.2 million tonnes. 

The  available  amount  of  wood  debris  is  generally  linked  to  population  size  of  the  EU 
Member  States.  In  2020,  Mantau  et  al.  (2010)  estimate  58.7  million  m3  of  post-
consumer wood to be available in the EU12. This calculation assumes an annual growth 
of 1.2% for the period 2010-2020. However, this figure does not take into account the 
increasing  recycling  rate  of  recovered  wood  over  time.  Assuming  an  1.5%  annual 
decrease of recovered wood going to landfill or incinerated, based on the period 2008-
202013,  the  quantity  of  recovered  wood  available  in  the  EU  for  energy  production 
decreases to 17.7 million tonnes, showing negative annual growth of – 0.3% in 2020. 

9  Used  wood  in  the  EU  –  Part  1,  Classification,  properties  and  practices.  BioNorm  II  –  Pre  Normative 
research on solid biofuels for improved European standards 
10  3rd  European  COST  E31  Conference  –  Management  of  Recovered  Wood,  Reaching  a  Higher  Technical, 
Economic and Environmental Standard in Europe 
11 Searle and Malins (2013) Availability of cellulosic residues and wastes in the EU, p 7, and Mantau et al 
(2010)  EU  wood  -  Real  potential  for  changes  in  growth  and  use  of  EU  forests.  Final  report. 
Hamburg/Germany, June 2010. (2010), p. 29. 
12 Mantau et al (2013), p. 29. 
13 ETC/SCP (2011) Projections of Municipal Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases. ETC/SCP working 
paper 4/2011, Annex III. http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/wp/2011wp4  

August 2014  43 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

The growing demand for wood material has led to increasing interest in the untapped 
potential  of  recovered  wood  across  Europe.  Generally  European  management  of 
resources prioritizes the re-use of materials (e.g. waste hierarchy). The second option 
is  recycling,  while  the  last  option  is  extracting  the  energy  potential  of  the  used 
material. The usage should be based on this hierarchy. 

Countries  with  high  utilization  rate  of  recovered  wood  in  material  and  energetic 
purposes have developed regulatory framework on dividing recovered wood to various 
quality classes based on cleanliness and level of contamination. Clean qualities can be 
further  utilized  to  material  purposes,  such  as  particleboard  production  whereas  the 
lower quality classes are suitable only for combustion (Figure 25). It is clear that the 
utilization  of  recovered  wood  can  be  increased  by  development  of  recycling  practices 
and  related  regulations.  Urbanization14  and  consequent  use  of  wood  in  construction 
and  packaging  are  the  dominant  drivers  in  the  countries  with  high  utilization  rate  of 
recovered  wood.  Increasing  urbanization  means  that  more  people  are  living in  urban 
areas, where majority of wood products are consumed. Recovered wood resources are 
becoming  more  centrally  available  thus  the  recycling  and  handling  facilities  and 
networks can be established easier than in sparsely populated areas. 

Figure 25 

Suitability of recovered wood as recycled material or energy use 

Source: Indufor 

According to a review of several data sources, Germany, the UK, Italy and France are 
the biggest consumers of recycled wood in the EU (Figure 26). The total consumption 
of  recycled  wood  in  the  EU27  is  estimated  at  about  21  million  tonnes.  When  a 
conversion  factor  of  1.67  m³  per  1  tonne  of  recovered  wood  (according  to  JWEE)  is 
applied,  this  correspond  app.  35  million  m³  of  wood.  Based  on  general  increase  of 
wood biomass for energy production and increasing requirement of efficient recycling 
of  waste  materials  the  European  market  for  recovered  wood  is  expected  to  grow; 
however,  no  solid  official  data  showing  trends  is  available.  Most  of  the  trade  of 
recovered  wood  occurs  between  companies  but  some  independent  market  places  on 
the Internet are becoming established. The two main importers are Italy, due to their 
particleboard  industry  and  Germany  with  developed  energy  generation  plants.  Price 
levels  are  expected  to  increase  in  the  future  because  of  growing  demand  and  the 
integration of the market. Recovered wood markets are highly interrelated with policy 
matters as well as energy prices. Owing to its high bulk/value ratio, recovered wood is 

14  United  Nations  Department  of  Economic  and  Social  Affairs/Population  Division.  World  Urbanization 
Prospects: The 2011 Revision. 

August 2014  44 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

not  transported  long  distances  and  therefore  it  is  usually  used  close  to  the  place  of 
collection. 

Figure 26 

Consumption of recovered wood in main end-use segments by country in the 
EU27 (2010e) 

s
e
n
n
o
t
0
0
0
1

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Others

Wood Based Panels

Energy

Sources: JWEE, EPF, COST 31, Wood Recyclers’ Association UK, BAV Germany, Indufor Estimate.  

Figure  27  shows  the  shares  of  recovered  wood  consumption  in  three  main  end-use 
segments.  Majority  of  recovered  wood  is  used  in  energy  production.  Wood  based 
panels sector constitute almost 30% of recovered wood consumption. Other uses such 
as mulch, animal bedding etc. cover about 13% of the total consumption. 

August 2014  45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 27 

Consumption of recovered wood in main end-use segments in the EU27 
(2010e) 

13%

28%

59%

Energy

Wood Based Panels

Others

Total : 21 million tonnes or 35 million m³

Sources: JWEE, EPF, COST 31, Wood Recyclers’ Association UK, BAV Germany, Indufor Estimate 

Recovered  wood  that  contains  heavy  metals  or  hazardous  materials  can  only  be 
utilised  for  energy  purposes  and  even  then  it  is  very  important  to  control  the  nature 
and  amount  of  pollutants  formed  during  the  combustion  process.  Usually  large  scale 
combustion boilers have an efficient flue gas cleaning, but combustion of this material 
in  small  ovens  or  single  house  heating  is  not  recommended  nor  allowed.  There  are 
several  EU  directives  that  control  and  define  the  use  of  recovered  wood  for  different 
purposes.  Recovered  wood  related  legislation  has  been  issued  by  the  EU  since  the 
early 1970s through various directives. 

Most  importantly  Directive  91/689/EEC  –  “The  Directive  on  Hazardous  waste”  and 
Commission Decision 2000/532/EC  – “The List of Wastes and Hazardous Wastes” are 
the basis of defining the recovered wood in the different classes described above. The 
directive  defines  categories  or  generic  types  of  hazardous  waste  that  are  relevant  to 
recovered wood. 

Contaminants originating from different sources need to be taken into account in the 
utilisation  of  recovered  wood.  Different  risks  are  associated  in  their  preparation  and 
use. From the aspect of occupational toxicology the dust from wood processing needs 
to  be  considered.  The  possible  releasing  of  contaminants  poses  a  risk  to  the 
environment as a consequence of processing recovered wood. 

August 2014  46 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Black liquor 

Black  liquor  is  the  spent  cooking  liquor  produced  from  the  kraft  process  when 
digesting  pulpwood  into  paper  pulp.  Lignin,  hemicelluloses  and  other  substances  are 
removed  from  the  wood  to  free  the  cellulose  fibres.  The  pulp  industry  derives  a 
significant share of its energy consumption in the form of bioenergy from black liquor. 
This  by-product  is  entirely  used  in  energy  production  within  the  pulp  and  paper 
industry.  In  most  cases  the  produced  energy  is  utilized  within  the  processes  of 
integrated pulp and paper industry.  In some cases the pulp and paper mills may sell 
the excess heat and/or electricity to the neighbouring community. 

Figure 28 displays the estimated black liquor production in the EU27 countries. In this 
respect  the  production  volume  equals  the  consumption  since  black  liquor  is  used  to 
energy  at  the  pulp  mill  where  it  is  produced.  The  estimated  annual  black  liquor 
production  in  the  EU27  is  around  41  million  tonnes.  The  consumption  of  black  liquor 
cannot be converted to cubic meters since it is a derivate of chemical process in which 
the  output  yield  of  black  liquor  varies  depending  on  factors  like  produced  pulp  type, 
tree species etc. The biggest producers in descending order are Sweden (12.8 million 
tonnes/a),  Finland  (11  million  tonnes/a),  Portugal  (3.4  million  tonnes/a),  Spain  (2.6 
million  tonnes/a)  and  Germany  (2.6  million  tonnes/a).  Figure  29  show  that  two 
biggest producers and consumers, Sweden and Finland, contribute almost 60% of the 
total  black  liquor  consumption  in  the  EU.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  share  of  virgin 
wood raw material being the highest in these countries. Black liquor is produced only 
as  a  result  of  pulp  production  from  virgin  pulpwood  sources.  In  major  Central 
European  pulp  producing  countries  such  as  Germany  and  France  the  raw  material 
basis is dominated by recycled paper and the share of virgin pulpwood raw material is 
considerably lower. 

Figure 28 

Production of black liquor in the EU27 

s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Others

Slovakia

Czech Republic

Poland

France

Austria

Germany

Spain

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

2000

2005

2010

Source:  Indufor,  Study  on  the  Wood  Raw  Material  Supply  and  Demand  for  the  EU  Wood-processing 
Industries.  

August 2014  47 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 29 

Consumption of black liquor in the EU27 (2010) 

2% 2%

3%

3%

32%

4%

6%

6%

7%

8%

27%

Sweden

Finland

Portugal

Spain

Germany

Austria

France

Poland

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Others

Total: 41 Million tonnes

Source: Indufor, Study on the Wood Raw Material Supply and Demand for the EU Wood-processing Industries 

In  the  future  trend  of  black  liquor  utilisation  volumes  are  strongly  linked  to  the 
development of chemical pulp production. The utilisation of black liquor takes place at 
the site of production. There are a very few instances of domestic trade of black liquor 
between pulp mills. This happens only locally for specific reasons. 

Liquid biofuels from wood15,16 

Liquid biofuels such as biodiesel, bioethanol and bio-oils represent a major potential in 
refining wood to fuels used e.g. in the transportation. Liquid biofuels are developed all 
over  the  world.  The  primary  driver  is  to  displace  fuels  currently  derived  from  fossil 
sources. Energy security and flexibility and both rural and urban job development are 
other important drivers. Liquid biofuels can also be used as raw material for a number 
of bio-based chemicals.  

The  most  developed  liquid  biofuel  concepts  based  on  woody,  i.e.  ligno-cellulosic, 
biomass, are pyrolysis to bio-oil and fermentation to bioethanol, which both processes 
are in a commercial stage today.  Several pyrolysis oil plants have been operating for 
years.  These  processing  plants  are  considered  as  the  “1st  generation  biorefineries”. 
Biofuel production can be integrated with large sawmills or the biofuel plant can be a 
section in some other integrated forest industry complex such as a pulp mill. 

In  the  EU  the  production  of  liquid  biofuels  are  on  a  pilot  project  level.  The  first 
commercial  lignocellulose-based  bioethanol  plants  are  functioning,  but  only  demo 
plants are based solely on wood. The deployment of new biorefinery concepts, based 
largely  on  ligno-cellulosic  feedstocks,  will  need  to  rely  on  the  technical  maturity  of  a 
range  of  processes  to  produce  materials,  chemicals,  and  energy.  Considerable 
development  work  is  underway  and  new  biorefinery  concepts  are  expected  to  be 

15  Bauen,  A.  et  al.  Bioenergy  –  A  Sustainable  and  Reliable  Energy  Source.  A  Review  of  Status  and 
Prospects. IEA Bioenergy: ExCo: 2009/06 
16 Indufor data 

August 2014  48 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

commercially deployed by 2020. The mix of market and government support for green 
materials  and  chemicals  and  for  bioenergy  will  be  an important  factor  in  determining 
the  type  and  rate  of  deployment  of  biorefineries.  Regardless  their  currently  minor 
effect  on  wood  consumption  larger  investments  of  biorefineries  using  wood  are 
planned  and  they  can  have  a  major  effect  on  the  regional  demand  of  wood  raw 
material if realized. 

2.1.4 Energy and material use of wood biomass 

Different  wood  raw  material  types  (industrial  roundwood,  forest  residues,  recovered 
paper,  and  recovered  wood)  each  have  their  own  optimal  uses  from  technical  and 
economic points of view. Some categories can in principle be used for a wide range of 
end  products,  others  (for  instance  bark)  practically  only  for  energy.  Therefore,  the 
level of competition for categories varies. There are also a number of by-product flows 
from one use to another. 

As  stated  in  the  Indufor’s  “Study  on  the  Wood  Raw  Material  Supply  and  Demand  for 
the EU Wood-processing Industries”, sawmills are in a key position to keep the market 
of  wood  raw  material  running  for  both  material  and  energy  uses.  Sawlogs  are  the 
most valuable part of the tree, and thus the most interesting part from the producer’s 
point  of  view  (Figure  30).  Procurement  of  proportions  with  lesser  value  (pulpwood, 
tops  and  branches)  is  tightly  integrated  to  the  supply  of  sawlogs.  Enhancing  the 
availability  of  sawlogs  improves  also  the  raw  material  acquisition  possibilities  of  pulp 
and paper, woodworking and bioenergy industries. 

Figure 30 

Volume and value from different parts of a tree (softwood) in final fellings in 
privately owned forests in Finland, 2012 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

% of volume

% of value

Tops, branches and roots

Pulpwood

Log

Source: Finnish Forest Research Institute 

The  supply  of  various  wood  categories  is  strongly  interconnected.  Harvested  trees 
(especially in the final harvest) usually consist of a sawlog portion (bottom), pulpwood 
portion  (middle)  and  the  fuel  wood  or  biomass  energy  wood  portion  (tops,  branches 
and roots). Sawlogs are typically the most valuable part of the stem, and the revenue 

August 2014  49 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

from  logs  is  typically  the  key  driver  for  forest  owners.  If  sawlog  prices  are  low,  the 
higher prices of other categories cannot typically off-set that. In Figure 31 below, the 
use  of  wood  has  been  divided  among  three  main  categories;  the  pulp  and  paper 
industry, the wood products industry (woodworking) and the bio-energy production. 

Figure 31 

Interrelations of wood consuming industries and wood raw materials 

Source:  Indufor,  Study  on  the  Wood  Raw  Material  Supply  and  Demand  for  the  EU  Wood-processing 
Industries.  OSB  =  Oriented  Strand  Board,  MDF  =  Medium  Density  Fibreboard,  CHP  =  Combined  Heat  and 
Power production. 

As  there  is  competition  for  certain  wood  categories  in  several  end-uses,  the  wood 
paying  capability  of  different  end-uses  largely  determines  who  gets  to  use  any  given 
category. In recent years especially, the wood based bioenergy products (wood pellets 
and CHP) have competed for the same raw material base. It appears that pellet- and 
bio-energy plants can currently pay equal or somewhat higher prices for raw materials 
than  e.g.  particleboard  plants.  Therefore,  the  competition  for  sawdust  and  low-grade 
roundwood  materials  in  certain  areas  is  fierce.  Energy  subsidies  have  an  impact  on 
this  competition  and  they  can  alter  the  competitiveness  of  various  end-uses 
considerably. 

Figure 32 presents a recap of consumption of examined wood biomass types in energy 
production  in  the  EU.  To  make  the  biomass  types  commensurate,  the  volumes  and 
masses  presented  in  the  section  2.2.3  have  been  converted  to  energy  (PJ)  based  on 
their  average  energy  content.  The  average  energy  conversion  factors  for  the 
respective products were derived from JWEE. 

The  total  estimated  wood  biomass  consumption  is  estimated  at  2  600  PJ.  Over  one 
third of this volume is accounted by firewood (105 million m³/a). Together with forest 
chips  these  two  primary  wood  energy  sources  cover  about  half  of  the  examined 
consumption.  Wood  energy  use  from  secondary  and  tertiary  sources  is  estimated  to 
account  to  another  50%  of  the  total  volume.  Black  liquor  is  the  largest  source  of 
secondary  wood  energy  and  second  largest  source  of  energy  of  all  wood  biomass. 
Wood  pellets  cover  about  total  9%  and  the  remaining  share  is  divided  between 
industrial by-products and recovered wood and bark. As discussed earlier, it must be 
noted,  that  the  estimate  of  firewood  consumption  and  forest  chips  includes  high 

August 2014  50 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

uncertainty.  They  are  not  based  on  solid  data  and  are  rather  an  indirect  estimate 
based on several different data sources. Official data of these types of wood biomass 
is  available  only  for  small  number  of  countries.  Even  though  the  estimate  of  these 
biomass  types  can  only  be  considered  as  ballpark  numbers  their  share  of  the  total 
consumption should be considered as notable. 

Figure 32 

Total consumption of wood biomass in energy production in EU27 (2011e) 

21%

6%

7%

7%

35%

Firewood

Forest chips

Industrial Wood Pellets

Residential Wood Pellets

Industrial by-products

Recovered wood

Bark

Black liquor

3%

6%

15%

Total: 2 600 PJ

Source: Data presented in section 2.2.3. 

Figure 33 illustrates aside wood raw material used in the EU27 for material and energy 
purposes.  The  volume  for  wood  consumed  in  material  use  is  presented  on  the  left 
stacked  bar  by  raw  material  types.  This  volume  is  based  on  the  data  from  study  by 
Indufor  (2013).  The  volumes  of  wood  consumed  in  energy  production  are  based  on 
the data examined in the section 2.2.3. 

August 2014  51 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 33 

Estimated current consumption of wood biomass for material and energy use 
in the EU27 (2011) 

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Recovered wood

Industrial By-Products

Wood Pellets

Forest Chips

Firewood

Roundwood

Material use

Energy Use

Source:  Material  use:  Indufor,  Study  on  the  Wood  Raw  Material  Supply  and  Demand  for  the  EU  Wood-
processing Industries. Excludes recovered paper and imported pulp (RWE). Energy use: Data used in section 
2.2.3. 

In Figure 33, wood consumed in material use is about the double to amount of wood 
consumed in energy production. About 1/3 of the wood for energy presented in Figure 
33  is  resulted  from  processes  linked  to  either  wood  products  industry  or  pulp  and 
paper  industries.  From  these  wood  biomass  types  only  firewood  and  at  least  part  of 
the  forest  chips  can  be  considered  as  “wood  consuming  industry  independent” 
biomasses.  An  important  question  arising  from  this  comparison  is:  How  much  of  the 
firewood  consumption  is  wood  that  could  be  utilized  in  e.g.  wood  products  industry? 
Furthermore,  development  of  the  energy  conversion  methods  has  major  potential  in 
adding value to the otherwise low-margin bioenergy products, and turning them from 
locally marketed goods into globally traded commodities. 

Figure  34  shows  the  same  wood  consumption  between  material  and  energy  use  but 
broken  down  to  main  consuming  segments.  The  consumption  within  wood  products 
industries  and  pulp  and  paper  industries  is  based  on  the  data  from  study  by  Indufor 
(2013).  The  division  of  wood  biomass  for  energy  is  divided  between  residential  and 
CHP production. In this respect CHP merges heat and power production, combined or 
heat-only  production  in  all  scales.  It  is  assumed  that  all  firewood  is  consumed  in 
residential sector. Industrial by-products and recovered wood is assumed to take place 
in CHP production. Wood pellets are divided between residential and CHP use based on 
shares  illustrated  in  Figure  24.  From  forest  chips  10%  is  expected  to  take  place  in 
residential heating and rest in CHP segment. 

August 2014  52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 34 

Estimated current consumption of wood biomass between main consuming 
segments within material and energy use in the EU27 (2011) 

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Residential heating

CHP

Pulp and Paper Industries

Wood Products Industry

Material use

Energy use

Source:  Material  use:  Indufor,  Study  on  the  Wood  Raw  Material  Supply  and  Demand  for  the  EU  Wood-
processing Industries. Excludes recovered paper and imported pulp (RWE). Energy use: Data used in section 
2.2.3. 

Pulp and paper industries figure does not include recovered paper and imported pulp. 
These raw materials were presented in the study by Indufor as part of the total wood 
consumption  of  these  segments  and  they  cover  about  58%  of  their  raw  material 
consumption  (roundwood  eqv.).  Also  bark  and  black  liquor  are  left  out  of  the  energy 
use segment. The reason for leaving these materials out of the figure is that it shows 
aside  the  wood  material  that,  at  least  in  theory,  could  be  interchangeable  from 
material use to energy use. 

Considering  the  inter-relationships  both  in  supply  and  demand  of  various  wood 
categories,  the  following  developments  are  possible.  Based  on  the  study  by  Indufor 
(2013)  sawnwood  production  can  be  expected  to 
increase  only  marginally. 
Consequently  this  means  that  no  significant  increase  in  the  supply  of  industrial  by-
products can be expected either. 

On the  other hand,  pulp production from virgin sources is  expected to increase since 
several  large  companies  have  announced  new  investments  to  chemical  pulp 
production  capacity  in  Finland  and  Sweden.  New  mills  will  use  virgin  wood  as  raw 
material  meaning  that  increased  bark  and  black  liquor  usage  as  energy  can  be 
expected. This also increases the regional competition of pulpwood between the wood 
consuming industries. 

August 2014  53 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

2.2 Agricultural biomass 

Bioenergy  from  agriculture  is  today  mainly  used  for  biofuels  in  the  transport  sector 
and  many  studies  already  covered  this  field  during  the  last  years  (see  e.g.  results 
from  BIOMASSFUTURES17,  REFUEL18).  Here,  the  focus  is  put  on  agricultural  biomass 
that is not typically used as biofuels for transport. These are: 

1. Woody/ligno-cellulosic biomass 

o  Biomass from short rotation coppice (e.g. willow, poplar) 
o  Biomass from ligno-cellulosic species (e.g. miscanthus, reed canary 

grass) 

2. Cropping residues (mainly straw from cereals and rapeseed) 

3. Residues from livestock (manure, slurry) 

This report focuses on  the current use, supply and demand and their trends of these 
three  biomass  fractions.  However,  these  biomass  categories  are  not  sufficiently 
covered  in  European  and/or  international  statistics  like  EUROSTAT  or  FAOSTAT.  To 
give an overview over these feedstocks we summarise (among other sources) findings 
from two EU projects (BIOMASSFUTURES and Biomass Energy Europe19) that analysed 
these biomass fractions. Besides future biomass potentials (which are not focus of this 
study),  both  projects  described  also  the  current  use  of  different  biomass  feedstocks 
including yields, cultivation areas, harvest volumes and costs. 

2.2.1 Woody/ligno-cellulosic biomass 

Biomass from lignocellulosic energy  crops can  contribute to primary energy  supply in 
the short term in heat and electricity applications and in the longer term in transport 
fuel  applications.  Lignocellulosic  material  can  generally  be  divided  into  three  main 
components:  cellulose  (30-50%),  hemicellulose  (15-35%)  and  lignin  (10-20%). 
Cellulose  and  hemicelluloses  make  up  approximately  70%  of  the  entire  biomass  and 
are tightly linked to the lignin component through covalent and hydrogenic bonds that 
make  the  structure  highly  robust  and  resistant  to  any  treatment  (Limayem  &  Ricke 
201220). Ligno-cellulosic material constitutes the world’s largest bioethanol renewable 
resource.  Grassland  encompasses  primarily  agricultural  residues  that  cover  food  or 
non-food  crops  and  grasses  such  as  switch  grass  and  alfalfa.  Aside  from  being  an 
environmentally friendly process, agricultural residues help to avoid reliance on forest 
woody  biomass  and  thus  reduce  deforestation.  Unlike  trees,  crop  residues  are 
characterized  by  a  short-harvest  rotation  that  renders  them  more  consistently 
available  to  bioethanol  production  (Limayem  &  Ricke  2012).  Lignocellulosic  Biomass 
can be used for material and energy use (see Figure 35).  

17 http://www.biomassfutures.eu 
18 http://www.biofuelstp.eu/downloads/REFUEL_final_road_map.pdf 
19 Biomass Energy Europe: 
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/EcosystemsServicesandManagement/BEE.en.
html  
20  Limayem,  Alya,  Ricke,  Steven  (2012):  Lignocellulosic  biomass  for  bioethanol  production:  Current 
perspectives,  potential  issues  and  future  prospects.  In:  Progress  in  Energy  and  Combustion  Science  38 
(2012) p. 449-467 

August 2014  54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 35 

Lignocellulosic biomass: Energy and material use 

Source: Plugis 201221, biocore 201422 

Miscanthus  is  a  C4  perennial  grass,  and  therefore  adapted  to  warmer  climates.  Reed 
Canary  Grass  (RCG)  is  native  in  Sweden  as  in  many  other  parts  of  northern  Europe. 
Several  thousand  hectares  of  RCG  have  been  established  in  Sweden  due  to  earlier 
grants for converting arable land into non-food crops. However, only very little of the 
grass  is  used  for  energy,  as  the  Swedish  market  for  straw/grass  combustion  is  not 
developed.  Of  15  plant  species  investigated  for  non–food  purposes  in  Finland,  RCG 
turned out to be the most promising for Finnish conditions. Switchgrass is a perennial 
C4  grass  native  to  North  America  and  is  being  investigated  in  the  EU  as  a  novel 
lignocellulosic C4 biomass crop for adaptation to European conditions. It is propagated 
by  seed,  which  contributes  to  low  cultivation  costs  (in  contrast  to  Miscanthus  where 
split rhizomes have to be used) (Eppler et. Al 200723). 

Short rotation coppice (SRC) is a specialised form of forestry plantation and refers to a 
perennial,  fast-growing,  high-yielding  woody  crop  that  is  harvested  every  two  to  five 
years and managed under a coppice system. Willow and Poplar are the most common 
species  planted  in  the  short  rotation  coppice  in  Europe.  Willow  is  mainly  produced  in 
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands,  the UK and Ireland. In warmer climates 
such  as  the  Mediterranean  area  (Italy,  France  and  Spain),  Poplar  and  Robinia  are 
grown  (Uslu  et  al.  2010).  Poplar  was  identified  as  an  alternative  SRC  crop  to  willow. 
There  yields  are  comparable  to  yields  from  willow.  Perennial  energy  crops  are  an 
alternative  to  conventional  forestry  to  increase  biomass  production.  Therefore  high-
yielding  short  rotation  coppice  plantations  can  fill  the  gap  between  this  new  demand 
for  biomass  and  the  current  supply  levels  (Wickham  et  al.  201024),  e.g.  the  chips 
produced from the willow stems can be used in heat and power generation projects. It 
is  currently  expected  that  an  SRC  plantation  should  be  viable  for  30  years  before  it 
needs replanting (Bauen et al. 201025). 

21 Plugis, Nick (2012): Outlook for Lignocellulose Derived Fuels. Stanford University 
22 Biocore (2014): (www.biocore-europe.org/institutions.php?id=4) 
23 Eppler, U; Petersen, J.E. (2007): Short Rotation Forestry, Short Rotation Coppice and 
energy grasses in the European Union: Agro-environmental aspects, present use and 
perspectives. Background paper. 
24 Wickham, J. et al. (2010): A review of past and current research on 
short rotation coppice in Ireland and abroad. Report prepared for COFORD and Sustainable Energy Authority 
of Ireland 
25 Bauen, AW., Dunnett, AJ., Richter, GM., Dailey, AG., Aylott, M., Casella, E., Taylor, G. (2010): Modelling 
supply  and  demand  of  bioenergy  from  short  rotation  coppice  and  Miscanthus  in  the  UK.  In:  Bioresources 
Technology. 2010 Nov;101(21):8132-43  

August 2014  55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

The  cropping  area  of  cellulosic  energy  crops  has  increased  steadily  over  the  last 
decade. Between 2008 and 2011, the total cropping area increased from 93 000 ha to    
138 000 ha26. However, the cellulosic energy crops are very unevenly distributed over 
the EU countries.  The amount of crop harvested varies with land quality, among other 
factors,  and  yields  range  between  21  and  27  oven  dried  tonnes  per  hectare  (odt/ha) 
(Glithero et al. 201327). 

Table  2  shows  the  production  of  ligno  cellulosic  energy  crops.  Romania  (switchgras), 
Finland  (reed  canary  grass),  Sweden  (willow)  and  UK  (Miscanthus)  are  the  largest 
producers.  The  produced  mass  in  weight  units is  based  on  the  following  assumption: 
short rotations coppice and miscanthus have harvest yields (dry) between 10 and 12 t 
per  hectare  and  year  (Eppler  et  al.  2007).  Based  on  minimum  values  the  following 
structure results: 

Table 2 

Area used for the production of ligno-cellulosic energy crops in 2011 (t/ha). 

 Area 
(ha) 

Reed 
Canary 
Grass 
(RCG) 

Willow  Poplar 

Miscanthus  Hemp 

Switch-
grass 

Total 

AT 

BE 

DK 

FI 

FR 

DE 

IE 

IT 

LT 

NL 

PL 

RO 

SE 

UK 

0 

0 

6 600 

0 

9 900 

600 

190 

56 970 

28 070 

187 000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

40 000 

9 300 

6 700 

5 500 

0 

0 

23 000 

50 000 

0 

54 900 

0 

0 

70 000 

3 000 

0 

0 

8 000 

1 000 

640 

0 

25 000 

20 000 

22 000 

750 

0 

900 

0 

0 

0 

0 

550 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 800  110 000 

5 500 

4 500 

3 900 

0 

19 000 

0 

105 000 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

24 500 

1 600 

86 420 

187 000 

48 000 

110 000 

31 300 

62 350 

5 500 

900 

73 000 

500 000 

500 000 

0 

0 

131 700 

124 000 

Sum 

194 990  324 070 

174 970 

187 790 

4 450 

500 000 

1 386 270 

Source: Aebiom 2013 and own calculation 

The  EU-Reference  Scenario  2013  (EC  2013)  assumes  that  in  2030  perennial  crops 
cultivated  in  the  EU  will  sums  up  to  7  million  hectares  (7%  of  total  cropland).  That 
would be 50 times as much as 2011.  

26 AEBIOM (2013): European Bioenergy Outlook 2013. Statistical Report. Brussels  
27  Glithero,  Neryssa;  Wilson,  J.  Paul;  Ramsden,  Stephen  J.  (2013):  Prospects  for  arable  farm  uptake  of 
Short  Rotation  Coppice  willow  and  miscanthus  in  England.  In:  Applied  Energy.  Jul  2013;  107(100):  209–
218. 

August 2014  56 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

2.2.2 Cropping residues 

Crop  residue  is  defined  as  the  non-edible  plant  parts  that  are  left  in  the  field  after 
harvest.  Agricultural  residues  are  biomass  residues  originating  from  production, 
harvesting  and  processing  on  farms.  They  are  separated  from  food  processing 
residues.  Residues  from  livestock  will  be  discussed  separately.  Biomass  from 
agricultural  residues  is  generally  used  as  litter  for  livestock,  mulch  and  humus-
building, as well as for making compost or fertilisers and mulch. Energy use is mainly 
through its use as a biogas substrate and burning (Raschka, Carus 201228). 

A further classification of residues is related to their production quantities. Therefore it 
will be divided into primary, secondary and tertiary residues. 

Figure 36  

Refunds of agricultural residues 

Source: Zeller et al. 201229 

28 Raschka, A.; Carus, M. (2012): Industrial material use of biomass Basic data for Germany, Europe and 
the  world.  Project  for  the  Federal  Ministry  for  the  Environment,  Nature  Conservation  and  Nuclear  Safety’s 
environmental research plan Funding code: 3710 93 109. Hürth 
29  Zeller,  V.  et  al.  (2012):  Basisinformationen  für  eine  nachhaltige  Nutzung  von  landwirtschaftlichen 
Reststoffen 
13 
http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/yo/DBFZ/13.pdf 

Energiebereitstellung. 

Report 

DBFZ 

zur 

Nr. 

August 2014  57 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 37 

Uses of crop residues 

Source: Lal 200430 

Factors  that  determine  the  amount  of  residues  include  crop  type  and  yields,  the 
biomass  ratio  of  crop  residues  to  crop  main  produce  (RPR),  and  percentages  of 
residues removed from the field for potential use. Cultivars of higher yielding varieties 
aim  at  higher  shares  of  the  primary  productivity  to  be  stored  in  the  harvested  parts. 
As a consequence the relative amount of crop residues is generally lower as compared 
to  lower  yielding  traditional  cultivars  (Fischer  et  al.  200931).  Primary  agricultural 
residues  depend  on  cultivation  area  and  crop  yields.  The  maximum  amount  of  crop 
residues that can be removed from the field without significantly affecting soil fertility 
is  debated.  The  importance  of  retaining  residues  on  fields  depends  largely  upon 
specific  local  conditions  (Fischer  et  al.  2009).  Furthermore  major  reasons  for  the 
variability  in  estimates  are  using  different  combinations  of  crops  and  using  different 
grain/straw ratios. 

The BEE project (2010)19 uses official data from Eurostat and FAO. On the basis of the 
crop-to-residue  ratio  and  availability  factors  the  assessment  showed  the  following 
results for agricultural residues:  

30 Lal, R. (2004): World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. In: Environment 
International 31 (2005) 575–584. 
31 Fischer, G. et al. (2009): Biofuel production potentials in Europe: Sustainable use of 
cultivated land and pastures, Part II: Land use scenarios. In: biomass and bioenergy, July (2009) 1–15 

August 2014  58 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

The total technical potential of EU27 is about 806 PJ (Table 3). The largest part comes 
from  common  cereal  straw  (562  PJ),  followed  by  rapeseed  straw  (89  PJ)  and  maize 
straw (86 PJ). The largest total potentials are for France (167 PJ), Germany (126 PJ) 
and Spain (103 PJ)32.  

Table 3 

 Potential of primary agricultural residues in 27 EU countries (in PJ) 

Cereals  Rice  Maize 

Rape-
seed 

Sunflower  Olive 

Wine-
yards 

TOTAL 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

TOTAL 

6 

5 

12 

0 

16 

19 

2 

9 

112 

93 

9 

16 

5 

40 

4 

7 

0 

0 

4 

39 

2 

19 

6 

0 

74 

11 

52 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

3 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

23 

7 

4 

11 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

12 

2 

0 

5 

0 

0 

562 

10 

86 

1 

0 

1 

0 

5 

3 

0 

0 

23 

25 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

3 

2 

0 

0 

1 

10 

89 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

3 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

14 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

10 

6 

18 

0 

22 

22 

2 

9 

167 

126 

18 

33 

5 

69 

4 

9 

0 

0 

4 

52 

5 

37 

10 

0 

103 

12 

62 

18 

28 

12 

805 

Source: Böttcher et al. 2010 

32 Böttcher, H. et al. (2010): Biomass Energy Europe. Illustration Case for Europe. Deliverable 6.1. – Annex 
I. Funded by the EC  under 7th Framework Programm. No 213417 

August 2014  59 

 
 
 
  
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

The  theoretical  potential  of  secondary  agricultural  residues  is  88  PJ.  The  technical 
potential of residues in the EU is 51.5 PJ. The largest part of the potential comes from 
sugar  beet  bagasse  (25  PJ)  followed  by  sunflower  and  rice  husks  (17  and  8  PJ 
respectively). The largest potentials are for France, Germany and Spain. The share of 
different residues on total potential varies significantly in different countries (Böttcher 
et al. 2010). 

2.2.3 Residues from livestock 

According to the BEE project the total manure potential produced in  the EU countries 
is  currently  796  million  tons32.  The  energy  content  of  this  manure  is  765  PJ,  with 
France, Germany and Spain as the three largest manure producers.  The largest share 
of  manure  comes  from  cattle  manure,  about  380  PJ.  The  shares  of  different  types  of 
manure  vary  between  countries  (Table  4).  While  in  the  UK,  Germany  and  France 
manure  stems  mostly  from  cattle,  manure  from  pig  farms  is  dominating  livestock 
residues from Denmark and Spain. 

August 2014  60 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Table 4 

The energy content of cattle, pig and hen manure in 27 EU countries (PJ) 

Pigs 

Cattle  Chicken 

TOTAL 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

6 

11 

2 

1 

3 

22 

1 

3 

25 

45 

2 

7 

3 

16 

1 

2 

0 

0 

20 

26 

4 

11 

2 

1 

45 

3 

8 

8 

10 

3 

0 

6 

7 

1 

4 

77 

57 

3 

3 

27 

27 

2 

3 

1 

0 

17 

29 

5 

15 

2 

2 

23 

6 

40 

1 

3 

2 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

17 

11 

3 

3 

1 

10 

0 

1 

0 

0 

9 

12 

3 

8 

1 

0 

13 

1 

15 

15 

24 

7 

1 

11 

30 

2 

8 

119 

113 

8 

13 

31 

53 

3 

6 

1 

0 

46 

67 

12 

34 

5 

3 

81 

10 

63 

TOTAL 

270 

378 

118 

766 

Source: Böttcher et al. 2010 

August 2014  61 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

2.2.4 Supply and demand  

The  present  EU  agricultural  and  forest  biomass  supply  is  estimated  at  314  Mtoe  of 
which  42  Mtoe  are  waste,  89  Mtoe  agricultural  residues  and  9  Mtoe  short  rotational 
and  perennial  crops  (BE  201233,  Elbersen  et  al.  201134).  Agricultural  and  forestry 
residues  could  fulfil  more  than  half  of  the  biomass  demand,  followed  by  wastes  and 
perennial crops. However the total supply of the rotational crop will not be sufficient to 
fulfil  the  policy  driven  demand  in  the  transport  sector.  Results  of  the  BIOMASS 
FUTURES  project  indicate  that  most  of  the  cheap  domestic  feedstock  will  be  utilized 
(i.e.  wastes  and  residues)  to  meet  the  demand  and  the  gap  is  likely  to  be  filled  by 
imported  biomass  feedstocks  and  biofuels.  Cropping  with  perennials  will  remain 
underutilized  domestic  sources  because  at  the  domestic  prices  they  can  hardly 
compete  with  imported  resources.  Stricter  sustainability  criteria  will  increase  the 
demand for residues, waste and perennials. This will create a larger demand for ligno-
cellulosic materials which is likely to lead to larger utilisation of domestic wastes and 
cropped  biomass  (BE  2012).  A  significant  amount  of  agricultural  residues  can  be 
expected  to  be  available  for  energy  purposes  in  2020,  most  of  them  from  cereal 
straw22 (Uslu et al. (2010)35). 

Supply  will  especially  rely  on  the  farmers’  willingness  to  grow  crops  like  SRC  and 
miscanthus. The main reasons cited for not growing these crops were impacts on land 
quality, lack of appropriate machinery, commitment of land for a long period of time, 
time to financial return and profitability. Reasons for willingness to grow included land 
quality, ease of crop management, commitment of land for a long period of time, and 
profitability (Glithero et al. 2013). 

De Witt (2010)36 notes that the total supply potential for woody crops like poplar and 
willow on arable land is mostly concentrated in central and eastern Europe and some 
low-cost  production  in  southern  Europe.  In  southern  Europe  the  use  of  eucalyptus 
dominates  (4.4  EJ/a).  Miscanthus,  switchgrass  and  reed  canary  grass  have  a  total 
supply potential of 6 EJ/y in Europe. The total supply potential for agricultural residues 
decreases over time from 3.9 to 3.1 EJ/a between 2010 and 2030. This decrease can 
be  explained  from  the  residue-to-crop  ratio  which  decreases  over  time  due  to 
assumed yield increase37 

Large  biomass-for-energy  resources  exist  in  Europe  when  considering  crop  residues 
e.g.  from  wheat,  barley,  rye  and  oats,  and  maize  residues.  The  estimates  vary  over 
time  due  to  assumed  yield  increases  per  region  and  due  to  the  assumed  area 
reductions for cereal and maize for the benefit of energy crops. The largest potentials 
are found in countries with important cereal production (e.g. France, Germany).  

Agricultural biomass is expected to make up a major part of future bioenergy supplies. 
Estimates  on  the  current  supply  of  energy  crop  resources  (2010)  range  from  1  to 
2 EJ/year  with  an  overall increasing  trend.  Residues  from  agricultural production  e.g. 
cereal  straw,  corn  stover  and  rape  straw  are  estimated  within  a  range  from  1  to 
4 EJ/year.  There  is  no  unambiguous  trend  in  estimates  towards  increasing  or 

33 BE Sustainable (2012): Sustainable biomass supply in EU. September 8, 2012 
34 Elbersen, B. et al. (2011): Securing a sustainable biomass supply in EU by 2020. paper 
prepared under the Biomass Futures project funded by the Intelligent Energy 
Europe Programme.  
35 Uslu, Ayla; Gomez, Natalia; Belda, Martha; Ciemat, Both (2010): Demand for lignocellulosic biomass in 
Europe. Policies, supply and demand for lignocellulosic biomass. 
36 Witt de, M., Faaij, A. (2010) European biomass resource potential and costs. In: Biomass & Bioenergy 34 
(2010) p. 188-202 
37  Ecofys  (2013)  Low  ILUC  potential  of  wastes  and  residues  for  biofuels:  Straw,  forestry  residues,  UCO, 
corn cobs. http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-low-iluc-potential-of-wastes-and-residues.pdf 

August 2014  62 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

future  (Bentsen,  Felby  201138).  The  European 
decreasing  resources 
Environmental  Agency  (EEA)  assesses  the  secondary  biomass  resources  to  3  EJ/year 
in  2010.  The  supply  of  short  rotation  crops  will  increase,  according  to  EU  Common 
Agricultural financial Policy.  

in  the 

The  demand  for  biomass  for  energy  in  the  European  Union  will  increase  from  the 
current 6 EJ/year (2010) to 10 EJ in 2020. Dedicated energy crops grown on liberated 
agricultural land or marginal lands are expected to be able to meet the major part of 
the  increasing  biomass  demand.  Residues  from  agriculture  are  not  expected  to 
increase  significantly  in  the  future.  The  demand  for  biomass  for  energy  will  probably 
increase also beyond 2020 and not only in Europe (Bentsen, Felby 2011). 

2.3 Biogenic waste 

The biogenic fraction of waste (or biodegradable waste) is a type of waste which can 
be broken down, in a reasonable amount of time, into its base compounds by micro-
organisms  and  other  living  things,  regardless  of  what  those  compounds  may  be.  The 
EU defines biodegradable waste as ‘any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic 
or  aerobic  decomposition,  such  as  food  and  green  waste,  and  paper  and 
paperboard’.39  A  specific  fraction  of  biodegradable  waste  is  termed  bio-waste  which 
includes  ‘biodegradable  garden  and  park  waste,  food  and  kitchen  waste  from 
households,  restaurants,  caterers  and  retail  premises,  and  comparable  waste  from 
food  processing  plants’.40  This  study  analyses  the  main  streams  of  biodegradable 
waste  generated  in  the  EU,  including  paper  and  cardboard  waste,  bio-waste,  textile 
waste, and sewage sludge. 

Biogenic  waste  is  subject  to  a  range  of  different  end  uses  in  the  EU,  including: 
recovery  and  recycling  for  material  use;  incineration  (with  and  without  energy 
recovery);  anaerobic  digestion  for  the  production  of  heat,  electricity,  and  fuel;  and 
composting.  The  fraction  of  biodegradable  waste  currently  disposed  in  landfills  is 
outside the scope of this study, as is that fraction used for the production of transport 
fuels. 

The priority order among the different end uses of biodegradable waste is established 
by  the  EU  waste  hierarchy,  set  out  in  the  EU  Waste  Framework  Directive.  The  waste 
hierarchy prioritises the material reuse of waste over energy recovery and landfilling. 
The degree of competition between the different uses of biodegradable waste depends 
on a number of factors, such as their profitability, the volume available for each waste 
stream and the drivers of demand from the different industry sectors. 

This section discusses the state of play of biodegradable waste use in the EU, including 
an  analysis  of  current  supply  and  demand  of  biodegradable  waste  for  energy 
production  and  material  uses.  The  inconsistency  among  the  different  waste  reporting 
systems at Member State level prevents a full assessment on the subject. In addition, 
as  noted  by  Eunomia  (2010),  in  most  cases  while  information  is  available  on  the 
different treatment and disposal methods, the composition of the quantities processed 
per method is, in general, not reported. For these reasons, primary information from 
Eurostat  has  been  complemented  with  a  variety  of  other  data  sources,  such  as 
Eunomia (2010), STOA (2013) and JRC (2010), and estimates have been made where 
official data were not available. 

38  Bentsen,  N.;  Felby,  C.  (2011):  Biomass  for  energy  in  the  European  Union  -  a  review  of  bioenergy 
resource assessments. In: Biotechnology for Biofuels 2012, 5:25   
39 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 199 on the landfill of waste, article 2(m), OJ L 182 
40 Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312/3 

August 2014  63 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

2.3.1  Supply  and  demand  of  biogenic  waste  for  energy  production  and 
material uses 

The following sections analyse in detail the supply and demand of different categories 
of biogenic waste: paper and cardboard waste; sewage sludge; textile waste; and bio-
waste,  i.e.  green  waste  and  food  waste.  Of  these  categories  paper  and  cardboard 
waste and food waste contribute most significantly to energy production and material 
use in the EU. 

Paper and cardboard waste 

Paper  and  cardboard  are  a  substantial  component  of  the  collected  biogenic  municipal 
solid  waste  (23%  of  the  total  share).  According  to  the  Confederation  of  European 
Paper Industries (CEPI), about 81.5 million tonnes of paper and cardboard waste were 
consumed in the EU in 2011 (CEPI, 2012).  Paper and cardboard usually have a short 
life-cycle and are discarded 1-2 years after production.41  In 2011, 59%  of paper and 
cardboard (amounting to 48.4 million tonnes) was recycled in the EU, while about 0.4 
million  tonnes  (0.5%)  were  composted  and  0.2.  million  tonnes  (0.2%)  were  recycled 
in other ways. 

According  to  CEPI,  Germany  is  by  far  the  largest  consumer  of  paper  for  recycling, 
accounting for the 34.6% of the total paper recycled, followed by Spain, Italy and the 
United Kingdom (Figure 38). 

Figure 38 

The largest consumers of paper and cardboard waste in the EU (2012) 

14%

4%

5%

6%

9%

39%

Germany

Spain

Italy

United Kingdom

Austria

The Netherlands

Poland

11%

12%

Rest of CEPI countries

Source: Own compilation based on CEPI (2012) Key Statistics. European Pulp and Paper Industry. 

In  2012,  almost  two  thirds  of  the  recycled  paper  demand  in  the  EU  (31.5  million 
tonnes)  came  from  the  packaging  industry,  followed  by  the  newsprint  industry  with 
11.6 million tonnes (24%), the sanitary and household paper industry with 3.2 million 
tonnes  (6.8%),  and  other  paper  related  industry  sectors  with  1.6  million  tonnes 
(3.3%). The demand for paper packaging, as well as the general demand for paper for 
recycling, is growing rapidly in emerging economies, such as China, India and the rest 

41  Searle,  S  and  Malins,  C  (2013)  Availability  of  cellulosic  residues  and  wastes  in  the  EU.  white  paper, 
October 
http://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EUcellulosic-waste-
2013. 
residues_20131022.pdf 

August 2014  64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

of  Asia.  This  is  driven  by  the  increase  in  the  transit  packaging  sector  in  Asia, 
combining with growing consumerism. Between 2000 and 2012, the demand for paper 
for  recycling  from  Asia  increased  fivefold  from  2.8  million  tonnes  to  10.2  million 
tonnes.  As  a  consequence,  exports  of  recycled  paper  from  the  EU  are  expected  to 
increase in the future, potentially leading to an increase in the production of recycled 
paper and cardboard. 

Figure 39 

Utilisation of Paper for Recycling by Sector in 2012 

3%

7%

24%

66%

Newsprint + Other Graphic
Papers

Packaging Papers

Household & Sanitary

Other papers

Source: Own compilation based on CEPI (2012) Key Statistics. European Pulp and Paper Industry. 

Although according to the EU waste hierarchy recycling of paper and cardboard should 
be  prioritised  over  energy  recovery,  because  of  the  higher  value  given  to  materials 
when  recycled,  the  paper  and  pulp  industry  is  in  direct  competition  for  the  use  of 
paper  and  cardboard  waste  with  the  bioenergy  sector.  CEPI  reported  that  5.5  million 
tonnes (7%) of paper and cardboard waste were incinerated in 2012 and, according to 
Eurostat, about 90% of paper and cardboard waste incineration is for energy recovery, 
which can be classed as bioenergy production. 

Sewage sludge 

Sewage sludge can be contaminated with heavy metals and toxic organic compounds; 
however  it  is  also  rich  in  nutrients  such  as  nitrogen  and  phosphorous  making  it 
employable  as  a  fertiliser  or  organic  soil  improver.42  The  use  of  sewage  sludge  as  a 
by-product from the treatment of urban waste water is regulated at the EU level43; in 
particular,  its  deployment  on  agricultural  land  is  restricted  as  to  prevent  harmful 
effects on soil, vegetation, animals and humans.44 

According to Eurostat, the total annual production of sewage sludge in the EU28 is 9.4 
million tonnes (dry matter)45, these data are in line with the estimates made by Milieu 

(2014) 

Sewage 

European 

Commission 

42 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/ 
43  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste  water  treatment.  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271&from=EN 
44 Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of 
the  soil,  when  sewage  sludge  is  use  in  agriculture,  OJ  L  181.  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278&from=EN 
45 Eurostat (2010) Guidance on classification of waste according to EWC-Stat categories. 

Commission’s  website. 

European 

Sludge. 

August 2014  65 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

et  al  (2008)  of  10.1  million  tonnes  (dry  matter).46  The  UK  is  one  of  the  largest 
producers of sewage sludge in the EU, with around 1.4 million tonnes (dry matter) of 
sewage sludge produced, followed by Belgium (1.4 million tonnes), France (1.3 million 
tonnes),  Spain  (1.1  million  tonnes)  and  Italy  (0.8  million).47  Concerns  have  been 
raised,  however,  regarding  the  reliability  of  these  statistics  given  that  it  would  be 
assumed  that  sewage  sludge  would  be  linked  to  population  size,  hence  Germany 
would be anticipated to also be a major producer. 

In the EU, the main fraction of sewage sludge produced is used as an organic fertiliser 
in  agriculture.  A  smaller  portion  is  also  used  in  forestry  and  composting.  Sewage 
sludge  can  also  be  dried  and  used  in  incineration  (with  or  without  energy  recovery), 
gasification  or  pyrolysis  plants.  As  sludge  has high  moisture  content,  dewatering  and 
drying before such use can be costly in energy and financial terms. As with other high 
water  content  biomass,  anaerobic  digestion  is  an  attractive  option  that  does  not 
require  drying.48  However,  the  data  available  are  not  sufficient  to  provide  a 
quantitative assessment of the shares for the alternative treatment options of sewage 
sludge in the EU. 

Textile waste 

Textile  waste  includes  all  types  of  textile  and  leather  material  which  are  discarded. 
This  category  mainly  includes  used  packaging,  worn  clothes  and  used  textiles,  and 
waste  from  fibre/leather  preparation  and  processing,  as  well  as  separately  collected 
textile and leather. 

The  textile  industry  is  widely  developed  in  Europe,  where  over  one  third  of  large 
European clothing companies are now based in Germany, followed by Italy with 14% 
of  all  large  textile  companies  and  32%  of  clothing  companies.49  Recently  the 
production  of  cotton  and  textiles  substantially  declined  in  both  countries  due  to  the 
economic  crisis  and  to  competition  with  lower-cost  markets,  such  as  Asia.  It  is  thus 
likely EU Member States will increase their reliance on textiles imports in the future. 

Due to inconsistencies in the data availability, the estimates on the amount of textile 
waste  generated  in  the  EU  vary  widely  over  time.  In  2004,  the  total  textile  waste 
generated in the  EU27  was  estimated to be 12.2 million tonnes, while a more recent 
study  for  the  European  Commission  found  that  EU  consumers  discarded  5.8  million 
tonnes  of  textiles  every  year.50  The  five  most  populated  Member  States  –  Italy, 
Germany,  France,  Spain  and  the  UK  –  account  for  three  quarters  of  the  EU-27 
production of textiles and clothing. 

As shown in Figure 40 below, the main source of textile waste (49%) is municipal solid 
waste,  followed  by  an  aggregated  category  of  worn  clothing  &  miscellaneous  textiles 
wastes coming from either municipal or industrial sources. 

Biomass 

46 Milieu, WRC and RPA (2008) Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on 
land. Final report. Part I: Overview Report, p. 2. 
47 Eurostat (2010) 
48 
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,18722&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL 
49  European  Commission 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148259.pdf  
50  Friends  of  the  Earth  (2013)  Less  is  more.  Resource  efficiency  through  waste  collection,  recycling  and 
reuse of aluminium, cotton and lithium in Europe 

(2011)  The  Textile  and  Clothing  sector  and  EU 

trade  policy. 

Sewage 

energy 

(2014) 

sludge. 

centre 

August 2014  66 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 40 

Estimated textiles waste generation in the EU by sources 

2%

11%

16%

22%

49%

Municipal solid waste (MSW),
Bulky waste

Worn clothing & miscellaneous
textiles wastes

Demolition & construction
waste

Production area (industrial
sources)

End-of-life vehicles

Source:  Own  compilation  based  on  JRC  (2011)  Study  on  the  selection  of  waste  streams  for  end-of-waste 
assessment. 

Figure 41 

Estimation of waste textiles flow 

Source: JRC (2010) Study on the selection of waste streams for end-of-waste assessment 

August 2014  67 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 40 above shows the estimated share of textile waste for different end uses. In 
2004, 2.5 million tonnes of textile waste were estimated to be collected separately or 
collected  and  then  separated  in  sorting  plants  to  be  used  for  recycling  or  energy 
recovery  by  the  textile  manufacturing  industry.  The  energy  use  was  estimated  to  be 
approximately 20,400 TJ. 

According  to  JRC  (2010),  it  is  estimated  that  in  2004  almost  1.2  million  tonnes  of 
textile  waste  was  used  for  recycling  or  energy  recovery  in  Germany,  followed  by 
600,000 tonnes in France and around 400,000 tonnes in the UK. Refined data on the 
share of recycling and energy recovery for textile waste in each Member State are not 
available. 

Figure 42 

Management alternatives for waste textiles at Member State level 

Source: JRC (2010) Study on the selection of waste streams for end-of-waste assessment 

Recycled  textiles  in  the  EU  are  used  as  raw  material in  a  variety  of  industry  sectors. 
Around  40-50%  of  textile  disposed  is  suitable  for  reuse  as  wearable  textile.  These 
products  are  re-sold  nationally  or  abroad.  20-30%  can  be  used  as  a  raw  material  to 
the  flocking industry  (i.e.  as  fillers  in  car  insulation,  roofing  felts, loudspeaker  cones, 
etc)  or  by  specialised  firms  for  fibre  reclamation  or  to  produce  paper,  board  and 
fleece.  The  remaining  25-30%  of  silk  and  other  textile  waste  is  sorted  into  different 
grades to become cleaning cloths for a range of industries from automotive to mining 
and to be used in paper manufacture.51 

Bio-waste 

As  noted  earlier,  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  defines  bio-waste  as  ‘biodegradable 
garden  and  park  waste,  food  and  kitchen  waste  from  households,  restaurants, 
caterers  and  retail  premises,  and  comparable  waste  from  food  processing  plants’.52 
This section analyses either green or food waste. 

Green waste 
Determining the level of production of green waste is challenging, due to the potential 
overlaps  with  agricultural  biomass.  The  category  considered  in  this  study  excludes 

51 Friends of the Earth (2013) 
52 Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312/3 

August 2014  68 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

cuttings  and  pruning  of  permanent  crops  such  as  orchards,  vineyards  and  olives,  as 
well as grass toppings from agriculture. Following the approach adopted by Elbersen et 
al (2012), all grass from non-agricultural areas, apart from road side verge grass, falls 
beyond the scope of this study, as well as any park waste.53 

The total amount of green waste produced in 2010 in the EU27 is estimated to be 12.3 
million tonnes. This amount includes 309 000 tonnes of road side verge grass and 12 
million  tonnes  of  other  vegetal  waste  generated  in  the  EU  in  2010.  The  major 
producers  of  green  waste  in  the  EU  are  Germany  (3.2  million  tonnes),  France  (2.5 
million  tonnes),  the  United  Kingdom  (2  million  tonnes),  Italy  (1  million  tonne)  and 
Belgium (0.4 million tonnes) (Figure 43). 

Figure 43 

Total amount of green waste in the EU27 

Source: Own compilation based on Elbersen et al (2012) and Eurostat. *Data on vegetal waste for Bulgaria, 
Greece, Spain, Croatia, and Portugal are not available. 

Green waste is widely treated through composting and anaerobic digestion at EU level. 
According  the  European  Compost  Network  (ECN),  in  2009,  about  40%  of  2500  sites 
for  composting  of  source  segregated  materials  in  Europe  only  treat  green  waste. 
Additionally,  there  were  800  small  agricultural  co-composting  plants,  mainly  in 
Germany  and  Austria,  and  195  large  anaerobic  digestion  sites  were  operational  in 
2010, with 5.9 million tonne capacity for organic waste, including green waste.54 

Food waste 
A substantial portion of biodegradable waste comes from food. However, the estimates 
on  the  total  amount  of  food  waste  at  EU  level  vary.  In  2010,  the  European 
Commission estimated, on the basis of Eurostat data, that 89.3 million tonnes of food 

53 Elbersen, B, Startisky, I, Hengeveld, G, Schelhass, M-J, Naeff, H (2012) Atlas of Eu biomass potentials. 
Deliverable 3.3: spatially detailed and quantified overview of EU biomass potential taking into account the 
main  criteria  determining  biomass  availability  from  different  sources.  A  report  prepared  by  Alterra. 
Wageningen, the Netherlands, p. 40. 
54  JRC  (2012)  Technical  report  for  End-of-waste  criteria  on  Biodegradable  waste  subject  to  biological 
treatment. Third Working Document, August 2012. 
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/documents/IPTS_EoW_Biodegradable_waste_3rd_working_
document_wo_line_nr.pdf 

August 2014  69 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

is wasted each year in the EU (excluding agricultural production)55, while FAO (2011) 
stated that only 53 million tonnes of food waste produced in the EU in the same year. 

A refined set of data were provided by the Institute for Technologies Assessment and 
Systems Analysis (ITAS) which estimated the amount of food waste along the supply 
chain, including agricultural production, post-harvest handling and storage, processing 
and packaging, distribution, and consumption. According to the study, a total amount 
of  138  million  tonnes  of  food  waste  was  produced  in  the  EU27  in  2006.56  The  major 
producer  of  food  waste  in  the  EU  is  the  manufacturing  sector,  accounting  for  74.1 
million  tonnes,  followed  by  households  with  56.8  million  tonnes  and  the  retail  sector 
with  a  smaller  7  million  tonnes.  The  biggest  producers  of  food  waste  are  Italy  and 
France,  with  respectively  12  and  11.5  million  tonnes  a  year,  followed  by  Spain,  the 
UK, Poland, Germany and Romania (Figure 44). 

Figure 44 

Production of food waste in Europe 

Source: Own compilation based on STOA (2013) 

Composting is  a  major  material  use  of  food  waste  and  is  ranked  higher  in  the  waste 
hierarchy  under  the  EU  Waste  Framework  Directive.  However,  according  to  ERM 
(2006),  processing  food  waste  via  anaerobic  digestion  can  yield  higher  net  carbon 
savings than composting. This could justify the preference for energy recovery of food 
waste via anaerobic digestion over composting.57 A predictable reduction of food waste 
will  lead  to  a  lower  volume  of  environmentally  sustainable  material  for  energy 
production  in  the  future.  There  is  pressure  to  reduce  food  waste,  increasingly,  under 
the waste prevention agenda. 

(2010)  Preparatory  study  on 

55  European  Commission 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/bio_foodwaste_report.pdf  
56  STOA  (2013)  Technology  options  for  feeding  10  billion  people.  Options  for  Cutting  Food  Waste,  p.  80.  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513515/IPOL-
JOIN_ET%282013%29513515_EN.pdf 
57 Searle and Malins (2013) Availability of cellulosic residues and wastes in the EU. White paper, October 
2013. http://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EUcellulosic-waste-residues_20131022.pdf  

food  waste  across  EU27,  p.  11. 

August 2014  70 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

An  example  of  a  food  waste  is  used  cooking  oil.  In  Germany,  around  80-90%  of  the 
UCO  collected  is  used  for  biodiesel  production,  while  largely  used  for  transport  fuels 
such  bioliquids  might  also  be  used  for  heating.  Similar  percentages  apply  to  Spain. 
Alternative material uses are in the oleochemical industry and for other energetic use. 
The  latter  is  rather  small  (around  70  000  tonnes)  due  to  quality  issues  of  the  liquid. 
The use of UCO for human consumption and food feed is not allowed in Spain. 

Within  the  EU,  the  EU  biodiesel  industry  competes  with  the  oleochemical industry  on 
the  use  of  UCO  and  animal  fats  as  a  raw  material.  The  competition  between  the  two 
industries on the use of the feedstock has led to a change in the previous status quo 
in which animal fats were reserved for oleochemistry and UCO for biodiesel.37 

August 2014  71 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

3 Global supply and demand of biomass 

3.1 Biomass supply and demand in major global regions 

3.1.1 Wood biomass58,59,60,61 

The  EU  is  a  major  trader  of  sawnwood,  pulp  and  paper  products.  The  trade  of  wood 
based panels majorly takes place within the EU. Regarding the energetic use of wood, 
wood  pellets  and  wood  chips  are  the  most  important  wood  commodities  that  are 
traded  globally.  Wood  pellets  are  most  commonly  globally  traded  wood  energy 
commodity and wood chips can be utilized in several end uses, mainly pulp and paper, 
wood based panels and energy. Trade of both products occur actively between the EU 
and global regions, thus the changes in supply and demand in global regions will likely 
have effect also to the supply situation in the EU. 

Wood Chips 

At a global level, wood  chips are one of the few wood commodities that have seen a 
steady increasing trend in globally traded volumes during the past decade. However, a 
study by IEA Bioenergy estimates that less than 10% of annually reported global wood 
chip trade volumes are energy-related. Majority of the chip trade globally is  destined 
for  pulp  and  paper  production,  with  some  trade  for  other  uses  such  as  fibre  and 
particle  boards.  Globally  two  main  markets  wood  chip  can  be  distinguished:  Atlantic 
wood chip trade and Asia-pacific wood chip trade region (Figure 45). 

Figure 45 

Global major wood chip trade routes 

Source: Indufor databanks, RISI International Pulpwood Trade Review 2012 

The  Atlantic  trade  region  involves  trade  of  wood  chips  from  Latin-America,  North-
America  and  marginally  from  Africa  to  Europe  and  Turkey.  Wood  chip  trade  flows  to 
and within the EU are discussed in detail in the section 3.2.1. Close to Europe, Turkey 

58 RISI International Pulpwood Trade Review 2012 
59 Wood Resources Quarterly 
60 IEA Bioenergy – Task 40: Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade: Global Wood Pellet Industry Market 
and Trade Study 
61 Wood Resources International LLC - Global Timber and Wood Products Market Update 

August 2014  72 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

is the key destination for international softwood chip imports. As the country does not 
impose  strict  sustainability  requirements,  and  is  not  part  of  the  EU,  it  can  and  has 
imported  large  volumes  of  softwood  chips  from  North  America.  Turkey  imports 
annually about 1.5 million m³ of mainly coniferous wood chips that are used within the 
wood based panels industry. 

In  the  Asia-Pacific  region,  Japan  and  China  present  two  globally  major  import  hot 
spots of wood chips (Figure 46). Majority of traded wood chips is consumed in the pulp 
(Japan, China) and wood based panels industry (China). The growing Chinese demand 
of pulpwood and wood chips has increased the total traded volumes of hardwood chips 
from 12 million m³ to about 35 million m³ in 2008-2013. In Japan, imports have been 
stagnating at the same time. Several large pulp mills located in southern China have a 
strong reliance on imported wood chips.  Major sources of these imports are Vietnam, 
Thailand, Australia and Indonesia. However, it is difficult to estimate how much of the 
traded wood chip volumes originate from wood plantations and if it includes wood that 
can be linked to illegal logging and deforestation in e.g. Laos and Cambodia. 

The wood chip trade in the Asia-Pacific region does not cast a direct effect to the wood 
chip  trade  flows  to  the  EU  since  it  is  not  part  of  these  trade  interactions.  The  wood 
chip trade flows to the EU are presented in the following section. 

Figure 46 

Major importers of hardwood chips in Asia-Pacific region 

³

m
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

S.Korea

Taiwan

China

Japan

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: WRQ 

Wood pellets 

The  total  global  wood  pellet  consumption  (2012)  is  estimated  at  about  20.4  million 
tonnes. The majority of global wood pellet consumption occurs in the EU. As displayed 
in  Figure  47  the  consumption  in  the  EU27  in  2012  was  about  13.4  million  tonnes. 

August 2014  73 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Some sources estimate consumption for 2013 as high as 19.5 million tonnes62. Rest of 
the world consumes about 7 million tonnes of wood pellets, majority of this in the US. 

Figure 47 

Global wood pellet consumption (2012) 

0%

0%

1%

5%

7%

21%

EU27

North America

China

Japan and South-Korea

Russia

South America

Other

66%

Total: 20.4 million tonnes

Source: AEBIOM European Bioenergy Outlook 2013 

North  America  has  doubled  the  export  of  wood  pellets  to  Europe  over  the  past  two 
years.  In  2012  about  4.8  million  tons  of  pellets  were  exported  from  Canada  and  the 
US to the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK. It is probable that the exports continue to 
increase  at  least  in  the  near  future.  North  American  wood  pellet  manufacturers  keep 
building  new  facilities  to  enhance  the  volumes  to  the  EU  market.  Wood  pellet 
production  capacity  has  increased  especially  rapidly  in  the  South-Eastern  US.  As  a 
result, US pellet production tripled during 2012-2013 in just two years. The expansion 
is entirely driven by the demand in the EU.  Wood pellet production capacity increase 
has  not  been  as  drastic  in  Canada,  but  the  steady  increase  of  exports  is  foreseeable 
due to several announcements of pellet mill investments. 

The  US  and  Canadian  domestic  policies  are  promoting  the  increasing  use  of  pellets 
within  North  America,  however  strong  increase  of  domestic  pellet  consumption  is 
unlikely  because  of  currently  cheap  shale  gas  used  for  heating  sector.  Wood  Pellet 
consumption in North America is estimated at 4.2 million tonnes, which almost entirely 
takes place in the US residential heating sector. 

Russia is nowadays a  major trade partner of  wood pellets and wood  chips to  the EU. 
Industrial wood pellets are traded from Russia to Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, 
Belgium and the UK and are mainly intended for large scale industrial utilisation such 
as  co-combustion  with  other  biofuels  in  medium  to  large-scale  CHP  plants.  Russia 
exports  about  700  000  tonnes  of  wood  pellets  to  the  EU  per  year.  The  domestic 
consumption  of  wood  pellets  and  wood  chips  in  Russia  is  largely  undeveloped,  only 
about 100 000 tonnes of wood pellets is used in district heating domestically. 

62  Blair,  L.  2013.  Global  pellet  markets  –  towards  a  commodity  status?  Presentation  in  Brussels  18  June 
2013 

August 2014  74 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

South  America  has  so  far  not  been  very  important  as  a  source  of  bio-energy  feed 
stocks for Europe. Plans of establishing wood pellet mills e.g. in Brazil exists, but large 
export  volumes  are  highly unlikely.  Existing  pulp  mills  have  strong  influence  to  wood 
raw  material  markets  because  they  have  the  strongest  wood  paying  capability.  The 
situation is probably going to remain due to announcements  of  several new  pulp mill 
projects and increasing local prices of wood and forestland. 

China  is  rapidly  gaining  importance  in  the  global  pellet  markets.  In  China  the  pellet 
markets  are  still  in  an  immature  state.  During  2010  the  pellet  consumption  in  China 
was  about  600 000  tonnes  and  the  estimated  consumption  in  2012  was  1.4  million 
tonnes.  The  most  of  Chinese  pellets,  about  85%,  are  based  on  non-wood  raw 
materials  such  as  agricultural  residues  like  rice  husks  and  straw.  Thus  the  growth  of 
the  Chinese  pellet  industry  can  be  expected  to  have  small  influence  on  the 
international  trade  flows  of  wood  residues.  There  are  19  wood  pellet  mills  in  China, 
located close to the Eastern coast with total capacity of about 750 000 tonnes/year. In 
the future the Chinese consumption of pellets is estimated to reach 10 million tonnes 
by 2020 making China to account about 20% of the global demand. However, most of 
the  demand  will  be  satisfied  through  domestic  sources,  so  China  is  not  expected  to 
have major interaction in intercontinental trade of wood pellets. 

Combined  consumption  of  wood  pellets  in  Japan  and  South-Korea  is  estimated  at 
1.1 million tonnes in 2012. The annual wood pellet production in Japan was only about 
34 000  tonnes  in  2009,  recent  numbers  are  not  available.  Co-firing  constitutes  of 
about  65%  of  the  Japanese  pellet  consumption  and  the  rest  is  consumption  in 
household sector. Imports of wood pellets  to Japan have strongly increased in recent 
years.  Most  of  the  wood  pellets  are  imported  from  British  Columbia,  Canada  with 
minor amounts from China, Vietnam and New Zealand. Some sources predict that the 
Japanese wood pellet consumption would reach 8 million tonnes by 202063. 

There  are  over  20  pellet  plants  in  South  Korea;  all  are  very  small  and  connected  to 
woodworking  industries,  using  their  residues.  Consumption  of  wood  pellets  in  South 
Korea  is  increasing.  In  2010  about  27 000  tonnes  of  wood  pellets  were  consumed  in 
South  Korea.  About  15 000  tonnes  was  produced  domestically  and  rest  imported 
mainly  from  China,  Vietnam  and  Malaysia.  The  future  market  of  wood  pellets  is 
expected  to  grow  due  to  a  renewable  portfolio  standard  introduced  by  the  Korean 
government.  Some  sources  predict  that  the  South  Korean  wood  pellet  consumption 
would reach 5 million tonnes by 202063. 

The  EU  is  most  likely  to  remain  globally  the  largest  wood  pellet  consumer,  but  East 
Asia,  namely  Japan  and  South-Korea  are  showing  signs  of  growth  and  may  even 
surpass  North-America  by  2020.  The  increasing  domestic  consumption  of  pellets  in 
China, Japan and South Korea will draw increasing amount of imports of wood pellets 
from Canada, namely British Columbia. Just recently, late 2013 first regular shipments 
of  wood  pellets  to  South-Korea  began  from  British  Columbia.  In  a  longer  time  span 
increased consumption in South-Korea and Japan casts an effect on the pellet imports 
of the EU. East Asian demand strongly depends on policy developments in Japan and 
South  Korea.  How  rapidly  this  demand  will  materialize  will  probably  become  more 
clear  when  more  details  on  policy  measures  in  both  Japan  and  South  Korea  are 
expected.  Regarding  China  very  little  useful  information  was  available,  and  demand 
development  is  hard  to  predict.  Demand  in  the  US  will  probably  remain  limited  to 
small  scale  use  in  households,  and  will  not  use  pellets  on  a  large  scale  for  industrial 
purposes. Also the wood pellet consumption in residential sector is usually secondary 
source of heat. This makes the market volatile and highly dependent on other factors, 

63 Wood Pellet Association of Canada 

August 2014  75 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

mainly  the  price  development  of  currently  cheaper  substitute  fuels:  shale  gas  and 
heating oil. 

3.1.2 Agricultural biomass 

The  global  demand  for  food,  fibre  and  fuel  has  become  a  matter  of  high  political 
concern while competing intensively for limited land and other  resources (e.g. water, 
infrastructure).  An  increasing  demand  is  expected  and  projected  to  grow  with  some 
50% by 2050 compared to 2011. Global industrial demand for wood fibre is expected 
to  increase  for  all  traditional  forest  products  and  this  will impact  future  land  use  and 
increase  pressure  on  land.  In  addition,  wood  fibre  is  also  increasingly  demanded  for 
other  uses  than  traditional  forest  products  like,  for  example  fast  growing  forest 
plantations  will  play  a  greater  role  in  meeting  increasing  demand.  Further,  combined 
land  utilization  is  increasingly  valuable  to  meet  different  and  growing  demands  for 
wood  fibre  (Holmgren  201264).  The  worldwide  production  of  woody/ligno-cellulosic 
biomass  in  the  agricultural  sector  is  still  relatively  low.  For  example,  the  increase  of 
production capacities from 2012 to 2013 was 22-fold lower than needed to reach 2DS 
targets  in  2025Error!  Bookmark  not  defined..  The  current  situation  suggests  that 
the  role  of  woody/ligno-cellulosic  biomass  will  be  much  lower  than  expected  in  the 
IEA-DS2 scenario. 

The  role  that  agricultural  biomass  will  play  in  the  future  of  supply  will  not  solely 
depend  on  the  many  technologies  which  exist  nor  on  further  investment  to  improve 
their  efficiencies.  It  will  also  depend  upon  the  ability  to  overcome  the  barriers  that 
inhibit  project  development  and  constrain  sufficient  commercial  investment  (OECD, 
IEA  200765).  Increasing  the  available  supply  of  biomass  in  future  could  therefore 
depend on surplus of arable land, marginal and degraded lands, or plantation forests. 
However purpose grown energy crops are unlikely to become economic within the next 
decade  without  introducing  direct  supporting  policies  unless  they  can  produce  multi-
products  or  demonstrate  co-benefits  such  as  acting  as  a  hedge  against  future  fuel 
supply risks (OECD, IEA 2007). The long term potential for agricultural biomass supply 
depends  on  land  availability  which  depends  on  food  sector  development  and  factors 
limiting access to land, water and nature protection. The yields of chosen agricultural 
biomass are also influencing (WEC 201366). 

The  future  demand  will  require  a  very  high  technological  level  of  agricultural 
production.  Crop  yields  due  to  different  agricultural  production  system  have  a  large 
impact on biomass potentials, but more knowledge on the expectation of learning and 
implementation  of  advanced  technologies  in  agriculture  will  be  necessary  (Dornburg 
200867). 

Strong  renewable  energy  targets  being  set  at  regional  and  national  level  (e.g.  the 
European  Renewable  Energy  Directive)  are  likely  to  lead  to  a  significant  increase  in 
demand.  This  demand  is  likely  to  be  met  through  increased  use  of  residues  and 
wastes,  sugar,  starch  and  oil  crops,  and  increasingly,  lingo-cellulosic  crops.  Under 
favourable  conditions  substantial  growth  is  possible  over  the  next  20  years  (WEC 

64  Holmgren,  L.  (2012):  The  global  need  for  food,  fibre  and  fuel.  Kungl.skogs-och  Lantbruksakademiens, 
Tiidstrift 
65 OECD, IEA (2007): Bioenergy Project Development and Biomass Supply. Good Practise Guidelines. Paris, 
France  
66  World  Energy  Council  (2013):  World  Energy  Ressources:  Bioenergy.  http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/WER_2013_7_Bioenergy.pdf 
67 Dornburg, V. et al. (2008): Biomass Assessment Assessment of global biomass potentials and their links 
to  food,  water,  biodiversity,  energy  demand  and  economy:  Inventory  and  analysis  of  existing  studies. 
Performed  within  the  framework  of  the  Netherlands  Research  Programme  on  Scientific  Assessment  and 
Policy Analysis for Climate Change (WAB) 

August 2014  76 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

2013).  To  cover  the  global  demand  and  to  achieve  global  bioenergy  targets  in  the 
longer  term  efforts  need  to  be  directed  at  increasing  yields  and  modernising 
agriculture  especially  in  regions  such  as  Africa,  Far  East  and  Latin  America.  Avoiding 
land  pressure  and  food  isecurity  the  global  supply  should  be  encouraged  using 
residues and wastes (WEC 2013). 

3.1.3 Biogenic waste 

Differently  from  many  forms  of  solid  biomass  and  some  agricultural  waste  and 
residues,  other  biogenic  wastes  and  residues  cannot  be  considered  international 
traded  commodities,  and  are  often  non-traded  or  range  limited.  Thus  the  changes  in 
supply and demand in global regions are unlikely to have major effects in the EU. 

This section presents the information available on biogenic waste consumption beyond 
the  EU.  This  limits  the  scope  of  the  analysis  to  food  waste  and  textile  waste.  A  full 
assessment  of  the  end  uses  (material  and  energy-related)  of  those  streams  is  not 
possible due to lack of data, in particular in relation to countries like China. 

Food Waste 

Food waste production is strictly linked to per capita ratios and population size of each 
regions of the world. According to the Food Wastage Footprint (FWF) model developed 
by FAO, at global level the Asian region (including India and South East Asia) appears 
to be a major producer of food waste.  In particular, in China food waste has steadily 
increased  in  the  recent  years  ranging  between  50%  and  70%  of  the  total  municipal 
solid waste (MSW) generation of 352 Mt (or 440 kg/cap) in 2010. As food waste is not 
collected  separately,  it  is  mixed  with  other  solid  waste  in  MSW  and  eventually 
incinerated or landfilled (landfilling of food waste reached on average 56.6% in 2009). 
68 

Another major producer of  food waste is the  The US, where food waste generated in 
2012 reached more than 36 million tonnes (accounting for 28% of total MSW)69, with 
only a small portion (5%) diverted from landfills and incinerators for  composting.70 A 
similar  trend  can  be  found  in  Canada,  where  an  estimated  $  27  billion  of  food  is 
wasted annually.71 

Textile waste 

The  US  is  one  of  the  major  producers  of  textile  waste  (around  9%  of  the  total  US 
MSW), and particularly of cotton waste.72 An estimated 14.3 million tonnes of textiles 
were  generated  in  the  US  in  2012,  accounting  for  approximately  5.7%  of  total  MSW 
generation. In 2012, the US recovered an estimated 14.4% of textiles in clothing and 
footwear  and  17.8%  of  items  such  as  sheets  and  pillowcases  for  export  of 
reprocessing.73  Between  1989  and  2007,  the  US  exported  nearly  7  billion  pounds  of 

of 

Energy 

68 Liu, G (2013) Food losses and food waste in China: a first estimate. Industrial Ecology Programme and 
Department 
engineering. 
http://www.oecd.org/site/agrfcn/food%20losses%20and%20waste%20in%20china_gang%20liu.pdf  
69 EPA (2012) Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the The US: Facts and Figures 
for 2012. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf 
70 The US Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Food Waste Basics. http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/  
71 Gooch, M., Felfel, A., and Marenick N. (2010) Food Waste in Canada. Value Chain Management Centre, 
George Morris Centre. 
72 EPA (2012) 
73 EPA (2014) Textiles. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/textiles.htm 

Process 

and 

August 2014  77 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

used clothes, mainly to developing countries. Tanzania is one of the largest importers 
of textile waste from the US.74  

3.2 Biomass trade within the EU and globally 

The main factor defining the suitability of bioenergy commodities to global trade is the 
energy  content  in  relation  to  the  required  storage  space.  Figure  48  illustrates  the 
characteristics of different biofuels in this context. Wood pellets, which is currently the 
most  important  internationally  traded  bioenergy  commodity  has  about  three  times 
smaller  space  requirement  per  energy  unit  than  logging  residue  chips,  which  are 
mostly  traded  locally.  The  energy  content  per  volume  in  bio-oil  is  almost  double  to 
wood pellets; however the global markets are currently at  an infant state. Straw and 
other agricultural biomass commodities have very low energy content and high space 
requirement. These biomass types cannot be traded long distances as such, but have 
potential as raw material of liquid biofuels. 

Figure 48 

Storage space required by various fossil and renewable fuels related to 
energy content 

h
W
M
0
1
/
³
m

25

20

15

10

5

0

21

19

12.5

11.5

8

8.4

1.7

2

1

3.2

Oil

Bio-oil

Coal

Peat Wood
Pellets

Birch
bark

Logging
residue
chips,
dry

Logging
residue
chips,
fresh

Pine
Bark

Straw
bale

Source: Alakangas et al. 2000 

74 The top export categories from the US to Tanzania include $ 27 million for miscellaneous textile articles, 
among them textile waste. http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/africa/east-africa/tanzania  

August 2014  78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

3.2.1 Wood biomass75,76,77 

Roundwood 

Largest  part  of  solid  wood  products  trade  to  and  from  the  EU  is  accounted  by 
roundwood  and  sawnwood.  The  total  trade  of  roundwood  within  the  EU  is  about 
45 million m³. The EU27 has been a net importer of industrial roundwood through the 
last decade. According to Eurostat, the total import volume of roundwood outside the 
EU27  reached  11.6  million  m³  in  2011  while  exports  out  from  EU27  amounted  to 
6.7 million m³. 

Softwood  roundwood  imports  accounted  for  about  40%  of  the  overall  roundwood 
import volume to the EU in 2011. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus account for  about two 
thirds  of  the  non-EU  softwood  roundwood  supply  to  the  EU27.  Hardwood  roundwood 
imports from outside the EU27 area are also dominated by these three countries. 

In 2011, China was the main destination for both softwood and hardwood roundwood 
exports from the EU27. According to Eurostat, Japan, India and Morocco were among 
the  countries  that  imported  over  100 000  m³  of  both  softwood  and  hardwood 
roundwood. 

Sawnwood 

Softwood  dominates  the  EU27  sawnwood  business  in  terms  of  volume.  Germany  is 
expected to increase exports outside the EU27 area, particularly to the US and China. 
Also Austria and the Czech Republic are expected to take advantage of the US housing 
market recovery. 

The  EU27  has  traditionally  been  a  net  importer  of  hardwood  sawnwood  but  this 
situation  has  been  changing  lately.  In  2011,  the  EU27  net  import  volume  fell  to  less 
than  1  million  m³  and  the  overall  balance  is  forecast  to  remain  the  same  towards 
2016.  Sweden  is  by  far  the  biggest  exporter  of  sawnwood,  followed  by  Finland, 
Austria,  Romania  and  Germany,  whereas  Italy,  the  UK,  France  and  the  Netherlands 
are the biggest importers (Figure 49). 

75 Indufor, Study on the Wood Raw Material Supply and Demand for the EU Wood Processing Industries 
76 RISI International Pulpwood Trade Review 2012 
77  IEA  BIOENERGY:  Task  40:  Sustainable  International  Bioenergy  Trade.  Global  Wood  Chip  Trade  for 
Energy 

August 2014  79 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 49 

Sawnwood net trade by country in the EU27 in 2011 

Net Exporters

Net Importers

Italy
United Kingdom
France
Netherlands
Denmark
Spain
Belgium
Poland
Greece
Hungary
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Latvia
Germany
Romania
Austria
Finland
Sweden

-12 -10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Million m3

Source: FAO Statistics Division 

According  to  Eurostat,  the  EU27  imported  16.7  million  m³  of  sawnwood  from  outside 
the  EU  member  countries.  Softwood  species  made  up  about  53%  of  the  total  import 
volume.  In  2011,  Russia  was  by  far  the  largest  supplier  of  softwood  sawnwood 
followed by Ukraine, Albania, Norway and Canada (Figure 50). The US was the largest 
source  of  hardwood  sawnwood  imports  followed  by  Cameroon  and  Ukraine  (Figure 
51). 

August 2014  80 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 50 

International sources of softwood sawnwood imported by the EU27 (2011) 

4%

2%

2%

3%

5%

6%

6%

6%

8%

57%

Russia

Ukraine

Albania

Norway

Canada

Belarus

USA

New Zealand

Switzerland

Chile

Others

Total Imports from outside EU27: 8.8 million m3

Source: Eurostat, External Trade database 

Figure 51 

International sources of hardwood sawnwood imported by the EU27 (2011) 

15%

2%

3%

3%

4%

4%

6%

10%

11%

30%

12%

USA

Cameroon

Ukraine

Cote D'Ivoire

Croatia

Malaysia

Indonesia

Brazil

China

Congo

Others

Total Imports from outside EU27: 8 million m3

Source: Eurostat, External Trade database 

Countries  in  North  Africa  and  the  Middle  East  dominate  as  markets  for  the  EU27 
exports  of  softwood  sawnwood  outside  the  member  countries  (Figure  52).  Japan  has 
long  been  a  traditional  and  important  high-end  market  for  Scandinavian  and  lately 
increasingly  also  for  central  European  suppliers.  Hardwood  sawnwood  exports  are 
spread  across  a  larger  number  of  countries,  with  Asian  countries  well  represented 
among  the  biggest  importers  (Figure  53).  The  economic  and  political  situation  in  the 
North African and the Middle Eastern countries is of huge importance for the European 
sawnwood industries. 

August 2014  81 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 52 

International destinations of softwood sawnwood exports by the EU27 (2011) 

23%

16%

3%

3%

3%

4%

6%

8%

8%

15%

11%

Egypt

Japan

Algeria

Saudi Arabia

Morocco

Norway

Israel

Switzerland

United Arab

Tunisia

Others

Total Exports outside EU27: 16 million m3

Source: Eurostat, External Trade database 

Figure 53 

International destinations of hardwood sawnwood exports by the EU27 
(2011) 

China

Egypt

Norway

Switzerland

Morocco

USA

Israel

Albania

India

Pakistan

Others

27%

20%

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

15%

8%

5%

6%

Total Exports outside EU27: 3.2 million m3

Source: Eurostat, External Trade database 

Wood Based Panels 

Particleboard  and  MDF  exports  and  imports  occur  mainly  within  the  continent, 
although Europe is a net exporter as a  whole. This trade deficit is forecast to decline 
gradually so that by 2016 the EU27 will be only a minor net importer. 

OSB  imports  from  outside  the  European  Union  are  small  compared  to  internal-trade. 
In 2011, exports from the European Union increased to China, Japan and the US with 
Russia,  Turkey  and  Ukraine  being  the  other  main  export  destinations.  However,  the 

August 2014  82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

total is still well below 1 million m³. Imports of OSB have fluctuated between 30 000 
and 200 000 m3 and are sourced mainly from North America. 

The  EU27  has  been  a  net  importer  of  plywood  during  the  last  decade.  The  annual 
trade deficit has ranged between 2-4 million m³. Hardwood plywood imports especially 
from  Russia  have  increased  rapidly  during  the  last  decade.  The  EU27  as  a  whole  is 
forecast to remain as a net plywood importer with Russia expected to remain a major 
contributor of extra-EU supply. 

Pulp 

Major pulp trade flows are presented in the  Figure 54 (CEPI 2011). The total exports 
from  CEPI  were  2.3  million tonnes  and imports  8.0  million  tonnes.  Some  80%  of  the 
exports were delivered outside of the CEPI member countries and 94% of the imports 
arrived from outside those countries. 

It  is  foreseen  that  imports  from  South  America  will  continue  increasing  as  pulp  mill 
investments,  including  those  from  EU-based  companies  continue  there.  About 
18 million  tonnes  of  extra  pulp  capacity  is  somewhere  in  the  project  pipeline  for 
2010’s.  A  capacity  of  five  million  tonnes  is  under  construction  and  soon  to  be  in 
production,  even  though  not  all  planned  projects  will  go  ahead.  Instead,  the  imports 
from the US are expected to decline, as the production capacity is adjusted according 
to the paper production capacity. 

Figure 54 

Pulp trade flows between CEPI countries and major global regions (2011) 

Source: CEPI 

Most of the pulp, 41% (over 3 million tonnes) were imported to the EU27 from Brazil 
in 2011, 18% of pulp imports were from North America (the US and Canada) and Chile 
is in third place with some 1.3 million tonnes of imports (Figure 55). This indicates the 
feasible transportability of pulp to Europe even from the Pacific coast of Latin America. 

August 2014  83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

It  is  foreseen  that  imports  from  South  America  will  continue  increasing  as  pulp  mill 
investments,  including  those  from  the  EU-based  companies  continue  there.  About 
18 million  tonnes  of  extra  pulp  capacity  is  somewhere  in  the  project  pipeline  for 
2010’s.  Capacity  of  five  million  tonnes  is  under  construction  and  soon  to  be  in 
production,  even  though  not  all  planned  projects  will  go  ahead.  Instead,  the  imports 
from the US are expected to decline, as the production capacity is adjusted according 
to the paper production capacity. 

Figure 55 

The main international sources of wood pulp imports by EU27 in 2011 

0% 0%

1%

2%

4%

5%

41%

7%

8%

14%

18%

Source: Eurostat, External Trade database 

Brazil

USA

Chile

Canada

Uruguay

Norway

Russia

Indonesia

Croatia

Morocco

Others

Some  43%  of  the  pulp  exported  from  the  EU  was  exported  to  China  in  2011  (Figure 
56). The exports to China increased from 800 000 tonnes in 2010 to 1.3 million tonnes 
in 2011. The exports to the other countries are minor. The export of pulp will increase, 
however the export of recovered paper will decrease because the internal EU demand 
is increasing. 

It is expected that pulp exports to China will continue growing because of continuing 
increase  of  Chinese  paper  production  and  the  decision  of  the  Chinese  government  to 
close  the  most  polluting  pulp  and  paper  mills.  Especially  NBSK  pulp  will  stay 
competitive.  A  question  remains  as  to  how  competitive  the  potential  greenfield 
Russian  Siberian  NBSK  mills  will  be.  However,  those  mills  are  not  anticipated  to  be 
commissioned before 2016. At the same time the recently announced Nordic softwood 
pulp capacity increases are expected to start production during 2016-2017. 

August 2014  84 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 56 

The main international destinations of wood pulp exports by EU27 in 2011 

22%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

5%

5%

9%

43%

China

Turkey

India

Indonesia

Switzerland

Egypt

Thailand

Japan

HongKong

Norway

Others

Source: Eurostat, External Trade database 

Paper and Paperboard 

Global  paper  and  paperboards  consumption  has  experienced  the  highest  growth  rate 
in  Asia  while  consumption  is  stable  or  even  declining  in  North  America  and  Europe. 
Paper  and  paperboards  production  has  increased  significantly  in  China,  where  the 
volume  almost  tripled  between  2000  and  2011.  Simultaneously,  the  growth  rate  of 
consumption is high especially in China. 

The trade flows  of paper and board are presented in the Figure 57 (CEPI 2011). The 
total  exports  from  CEPI  countries  were  18  million  tonnes  and  imports  4.6  million 
tonnes. 66.5% of the exports were delivered outside Europe, and 73% of the imports 
arrived from outside Europe. 

Most of the paper is imported from the US. Norway follows as CEPI countries. In 2011 
Brazil,  Canada  and  China  took  the  next  places.  The  export  from  EU27  is  larger  than 
imports. For example more paper is exported to the US than imported from there. The 
biggest  export  destinations  are  the  US,  Turkey,  Russia,  China,  Japan  and  Brazil.  The 
US and Switzerland are unlikely to invest heavily in paper mills in the near future. 

August 2014  85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 57 

Paper and paperboard trade flows between CEPI countries and major global 
regions (2011) 

Source: CEPI 

Firewood 

Most  of the firewood is traded in domestic markets, however about 3.4 million m³ of 
firewood was traded in the EU in 2012, mostly between neighbouring countries. Large 
scale  trade  of  firewood  requires  special  handling  in  bulk  transport.  It  decreases  the 
bulk (energy) density and makes long distances economically infeasible. Mostly trade 
is done in bagged form in nets, or stacked on pallets. 

Wood chips 

In the wood chips trade EU27 has followed the global increasing trend (Figure 58). The 
two major export routes of woodchips to the EU can be identified. Hardwood chips are 
exported with sea vessels to Spain and Portugal mainly from Uruguay, Brazil, Canada, 
Congo and Liberia. According to RISI the total Atlantic imports of woodchips to Spain 
and  Portugal  was  about  2  million  m³.  Another  trade  flow  of  wood  chips  originates 
mainly from Russia to Finland. About 2.2 million m³ (2012) of chips was imported by 
Finland from Russia. These volumes do not separate the chips for pulp or wood based 
panel  production  and  energy  production.  Minor  volumes  are  traded  from  Russia, 
Belarus and Ukraine. 

August 2014  86 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 58 

External wood chip imports to EU27 

³

m
0
0
0
1

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Hardwood Chips

Softwood Chips

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: Eurostat 

In 2013 the total traded volume of wood  chips within the EU27 was about 11 million 
m³. It is estimated that less than 10% of the annually reported global wood chip trade 
volumes  are  energy-related.  Similar  to  Global  trend  majority  of  the  chip  trade  in  the 
EU is primarily destined for pulp and paper production, with some trade for other uses 
such  as  fibre-  and  particleboards.  Globally  energy-related  wood  chip  trade  takes 
almost  exclusively  place  within  the  EU  between  the  member  states  or  as  exports  to 
the  EU27  region,  where  policies  promoting  the  use  of  renewable  energy  have 
stimulated wood chip use in the district heating and CHP segment. 

Wood  chips  for  the  EU  residential  market  are  primarily  sourced  locally.  The 
international wood chip trade is exclusively driven by the industrial sector, where chips 
are  combusted  in  dedicated  district  heating  or  CHP  plants.  Respective  trade  takes 
place  in  the  form  of  virgin  wood  chips,  or  chips  made  of  recovered  wood.  Official 
statistics indicate that trade of recovered wood chips dominate the EU-related trade in 
terms of volume. 

In Europe two main markets for wood chips in energy production can be distinguished 
(Figure  59).  The  first is  the  wood  chip  trade  between  the  countries  around  the  Baltic 
Sea,  where  Sweden,  Denmark  and  Finland  and  to  some  extent  also  Germany  have 
been  leading  importers  of  wood  chips  from  Baltic  states  and  Russia.  The  second 
market is the southern  market, which is mainly driven by wood chips use in medium 
scale  CHP  installations  in  Italy.  Italy  is  sourcing  major  volumes  of  wood  chips  from 
neighbouring countries and Balkans. 

The  key  constraint  for  international  wood  chip  trade  for  energy  is  economic  viability. 
Margins are primarily influenced by production and transport costs, but also prices in 
and  exchange  rates  to  target  markets.  Relatively  low  energy  density,  high  moisture 
content  and  variable  particle  size  and  shape  of  wood  chips  are  the  main  factor  to 
limited geography of wood chips trade to energy purposes. 

August 2014  87 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Production costs of wood chips depend heavily on feedstock prices. The key wood chip 
producing and exporting regions have a long tradition in export oriented forestry, but 
relatively  undeveloped  domestic  wood  processing,  and/or  pulp  and  paper  industries. 
They  benefit  from  the  availability  of  low  cost  feedstock  and  residues,  infrastructure, 
and  experience.  In  Europe  wood  chip  trade  usually  takes  place  directly  between 
supplier  and  consumer.  Combustion  plants  using  exported  wood  chips  are  often 
located  close  to  waterways,  allowing  for  a  relatively  economic  transport  of  the 
comparatively moist biofuel.  

Figure 59 

Bioenergy-related wood chip trade in Europe 

Source: IEA BIOENERGY: Task 40: Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade. Global Wood Chip Trade for 
Energy 

Large  scale  international  shipments  of  wood  chips  made  of  recovered  wood  are  rare 
but  have  been  known  to  occur.  Still,  globally  the  majority  of  recovered  wood  though 
appears to have been landfilled, combusted locally, or traded short distances, mainly 
between neighbouring countries. The key region for international wood waste trade is 
currently  the  EU,  mainly  due  to  legal  and  bioenergy  policy  frameworks  and  related 
financial incentives set across the individual member states. 

Historically,  Sweden  has  been  one  of  the  first  states  to  attract  large  amounts  of 
recovered wood. The trade of recycled wood has expanded to larger sphere involving 
several EU27 member states. Major trade flows of recovered wood chips are displayed 
in  Figure  60.  Top  importing  nations  include  Germany,  Italy,  and  Belgium  and  the 
major  exporters  are  clearly  the  Netherlands  and  the  UK.  The  relatively  balanced 
import-export  relation  of  Belgium  and  Germany  is  largely  related  to  national  policy 

August 2014  88 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

schemes  which  favour  different  streams  of  waste  wood.  The  German  renewable 
electricity  feed-in  scheme  has  provided  strong  incentives  for  the  combustion  of  clean 
(non-treated) recovered wood. 

Figure 60 

Trade of recovered wood chips in Europe 

Source: IEA BIOENERGY: Task 40: Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade. Global Wood Chip Trade for 
Energy 

Wood pellets 

Wood  pellets  are,  by  far,  the  most  important  solid  wood  fuel  traded  internationally. 
The EU is the biggest producer and consumer of wood pellets in the world. Demand in 
the EU draws currently the largest trade flows of wood pellets from North-America and 
Russia (Figure 61). 

August 2014  89 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 61 

Major global wood pellet trade routes (2013) 

Source: Eurostat, Indufor data 

Import  of  wood  pellets  to  the  EU  from  outside  was  about  3.2  million  tonnes  in  2012 
and customs statistics show that the imports to the EU in 2013 increased to 5.7 million 
tonnes. The US and Canada export about 2.7 and 2.0 million tonnes of pellets to  the 
EU  respectively,  Russia  about  0.7  million  tonnes/a.  Most  of  the  exports  from  North-
America  are  going  to  UK,  Netherlands,  Belgium  and  Denmark.  Russian  exports  are 
targeted  to  Sweden  and  Denmark.  Global  trade  of  wood  pellets  is  dominated  by 
industrial quality pellets. 

In 2013 the wood pellet trade within the EU was about 5 million tonnes. Major pellet 
exporters  are  Latvia  (1  million  tonnes),  Estonia  (0.6  million  tonnes),  Portugal  (0.5 
million tonnes). Romania and Poland exported 0.3 and 0.2 million tonnes in 2012. 

Two  of  the  biggest  importers  within  the  EU  internal  markets  are  Denmark  and  Italy 
that  imported  both  about  1.8  and  1.1  million  tonnes  respectively  in  2013.  Sweden, 
Austria  and  Germany  import  0.42  million,  0.36  million  and  0.32  million  tonnes  of 
pellets respectively. 

The  internal  trade  flows  of  wood  pellets  in  the  EU  can  be  separated  to  two  main 
regions.  Continental  European  zone  is  dominated  by  the  trade  of  residential  wood 
pellets used in the residential heating segment. Another area, the Nordic zone, besides 
having  strong  domestic  markets,  imports  both  industrial  and  residential  wood  pellets 
from sources within and outside EU. 

As illustrated in the Figure 62 the demand of residential wood pellet heating sector in 
Italy,  Germany,  Austria,  Denmark,  France  and  Sweden  draws  major  volumes  of 
residential wood pellets. The trade has generated and driven increasing household and 
residential heating use. 

In  continental  market  most  of  the  residential  wood  pellets  are  marketed  via  retailer 
networks  on  a  regional  level.  Only  few  biggest  large  scale  producers,  traders  and 
networks  operate  independently  on  the  national  level.  Most  small  and  medium  scale 
producers procure their raw material from wood processing industries in their vicinity 
and sell their products through a regional network of retailers. Often these companies 

August 2014  90 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

form networks that are selling pellets under well-established brand names. Networking 
helps  smaller  producers  to  enter  the  markets  by  providing  access  to  wider  logistical 
distribution system with sufficient transportation capacity. 

Most  of  the  residential  wood  pellets  traded  in  the  EU  follow  ENplus  wood  pellet 
standard  which  sets  the  characteristics  for  wood  pellets  in  terms  of  technical 
characteristics and transparency of the whole supply chain. About 3.5 million tonnes of 
wood pellets consumed in the EU are ENplus certified. 

In  the  Nordic  wood  pellet  markets  two  main  consumption  hubs  are  Denmark  and 
Sweden. Both draw trade of both residential and industrial wood pellets from Finland, 
Poland,  the  UK,  the  Baltic  Countries  and  Portugal  (Figure  62).  Trade  flows  from 
Finland, Poland and the UK include residential wood pellets.  

Total amount of wood pellets exported from Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania is about 1.8 
million  tonnes,  (1  million  tonnes,  0.6  million  tonnes  and  0.2  million  tonnes 
respectively. During the last decade Riga in Latvia has been the major export harbour 
for  Russian  made  industrial  wood  pellets.  Thus,  it  is  likely  that  these  volumes 
presented  by  Eurostat  include  also  industrial  wood  pellets  of  Russian  origin.  Wood 
pellets  exported  from  Finland,  Poland  and  the  UK  include  mainly  residential  wood 
pellets  consumed  in  the  Danish  and  Swedish  residential  heating  and  district  heating 
sector. Portugal has become one of the few major exporters of industrial wood pellets 
within the internal markets of the EU. Trade flows from Portugal are directed mainly to 
Denmark (0.3 million tonnes) and UK (0.1 million tonnes). 

August 2014  91 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 62 

Major rood pellet trade routes within the EU (2013) 

Source: Eurostat 

Export of wood pellets from extra EU sources involves mainly trade of industrial wood 
pellets.  Three  major  exporting  countries  can  be  identified.  The  US  and  Canada  have 
been  the  most  important  sources  of  industrial  wood  pellets  over  the  last  decade 
(Figure  63).  The  imports  from  North  America  have  been  increasing  during  the  last 
years and so far peak volumes 2.8 million tonnes from  The US and 1.9 million tonnes 
from Canada were recorded in 2013. North American exports are directed to  the UK, 
Benelux, Denmark and a small part to Italy. The Atlantic trade of wood pellets is done 
mainly directly between the supplying company and the consumer. Large volumes are 
consumed  rather  centralized  by  8  largest  companies  in  the  UK,  the  Netherlands, 
Belgium and Denmark (2012 estimated 85% of the industrial wood pellet consumption 
in  the  EU78).    Regarding the  North-American imports  wood  pellet  consumers  can  rely 
on supply security, thus longer term supply contracts are common. This has improved 
the transparency of trade by improving price visibility and indexation. 

Russia  has  also  increased  its  significance  in  the  EU  industrial  wood  pellet  export 
markets. During 2009-2013 Russian exports to the EU have almost doubled from 0.4 
million tonnes to 0.7 million tonnes. Major countries importing Russian industrial wood 
pellets are Sweden and Denmark where pellets are combusted in coastal CHP plants. 
Due  to  volatile  nature  of  wood  pellet  production  in Russian  mills,  the  export  markets 
are  not  as  stable  or  established  as  on  the  Atlantic  side  of  the  EU.  Industrial  wood 
pellet  trade  from  Russia  involves  traders  acting  as  middlemen.  Due  to  supply 

78  Blair,  L.  2013.  Global  pellet  markets  –  towards  a  commodity  status?  Presentation  in  Brussels  18  June 
2013. 

August 2014  92 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

uncertainty long term supply contracts between the trader and consumer occur rarely 
and the trade is mostly done as spot basis. 

Figure 63 

Major external wood pellet import routes to EU (2013) 

Source: Eurostat 

3.2.2 Agricultural biomass  

Trade  with  residues  from  livestock  is  in  general  low  due  to  the  low  value  of  this 
biomass fraction and its high water content. The production of ligno-cellulosic biomass 
is  today  rather  low  so  that  no  trade  statistics  are  available.  Also  trade  with  straw  is 
low.  Consequently,  these  biomass  fractions  are  not  reported,  e.g.,  under  FAOSTAT79. 
For these biomass types rather bioenergy products (bio-ethanol, biogas, pyrolysis oil, 
torrefied biomass) may be traded in future80. 

Regarding  woody  biomass  from  short  rotations  produced  biomass  is  very  similar  to 
products from forest land. Thus, it can be assumed that these biomass streams follow 
the  same  trade  channels  as  forest  biomass.  The  key  constraint  is  economic  viability. 
Already  key  producing  countries/regions  benefit  from  residues  trade  due  to  existing 
infrastructure  and  export  orientation.  The  EU  markets  will  be  expected  as  a  large 
driver  for  international  woody  biomass  trade.  The  EU  will  be  net  importer  and  North 
America will be net exporter, especially for wood pellets (see chapter above) (Lamers 
et al. 2014). 

79 FAOSTAT: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E  
80 IEA (International Energy Agency) 2012: Technology roadmap - bioenergy for heat and power. Paris. 

August 2014  93 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

3.2.3 Biogenic waste 

As  discussed  in  section  2.3  above,  the  most  obvious  end  uses  of  paper/cardboard 
waste are recycling, composting or incineration with energy recovery. Almost two third 
of the total volume of paper and cardboard waste is utilised in those activities. If intra- 
and  extra-EU  trade  flows  of  recovered  paper  provide  an  indication  on  the  traded 
volumes of waste paper which have undergone recycling and composting (as outlined 
below), this is not sufficient to determine the trade flows of this category of waste due 
to energy production. 

The total traded  volume  of  recovered paper within the EU27 amounts to 10.6 million 
tonnes in 2010 (Figure 64). In terms of exports from the EU, the total amount traded 
was  around  9.38  million  tonnes  in  2010,  97%  of  goes  to  Asia  (9.11  million  tonnes), 
followed by a 2% to other European countries (206 000 tonnes) and by less than 1% 
to North America, Latin America and the rest of the world (63 000 tonnes) (see Figure 
65). 

 Figure 64  

Trade flows of recovered paper in 2010 

Source: CEPI (2012) Key Statistics 2010. European Pulp and Paper Industry. 
http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/documents/publications/statistics/2010%20Key%20Statistics%20FINAL
.pdf  

August 2014  94 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 65  

Exports of recovered paper from the EU to other regions in 2010 

Source: CEPI (2012) Key Statistics 2010. European Pulp and Paper Industry. 

The total imports of recovered paper amounts to 1.22 million tonnes in 2010. Most of 
the  volumes  come  from  other  European  countries  (83.6%  or  approximately  1  million 
tonnes) or from North America (15.1% or 184 000 tonnes) (Figure 66). 

Figure 66 

Imports of recovered paper to the EU from other regions in 2010 

Source: CEPI (2012) Key Statistics 2010. European Pulp and Paper Industry 

August 2014  95 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

4 Costs and prices of biomass 

4.1 Costs of biomass supply 

4.1.1 Wood biomass81,82 

Bioenergy  projects  must  be  economically  viable  for  the  different  actors  in  the  value 
chain. Woody biomass used for energy generation must be able to compete with other 
uses,  e.g.  wood  based  panels  and  at  the  same  time  the  energy  produced  from 
biomass  must  be  as  cheap  as  or  cheaper  than  energy  produced  from  competing 
energy sources. 

Main cost factors are similar for supply of wood for energy and industrial roundwood. 
Thus factors like harvesting and forwarding productivity, terrain and hauling distance 
as  well  as  long  distance  transport  affect  the  cost  efficiency  in  similar  manner.  The 
biggest  differences  in  harvesting  wood  to  energy  purposes  are  generally  lower  yield 
per harvested hectare and lower market price of harvested wood material. 

The share of solid fuel feedstock, such as biomass, in the operation costs of a typical 
energy  plant  is  approximately  about  50%83.  Thus,  the  competitiveness  of  biomass-
based energy generation strongly depends on the cost and quality of feedstock supply. 
In  this  chapter  factors  affecting  supply  cost  structure  of  two  different  wood  biomass 
types, forest chips and wood pellets is observed. These represent two different types 
of wood biomass commonly used in energy production. 

  Forest  chips  are  a  primary  wood  energy  source  which  is  derived  from  fresh 

harvested wood raw material that has not had any previous use. 

  Wood pellets are traditionally made of industrial by-products which are a secondary 
wood  energy  source,  coming  from  industrial  wood  processing  but  has  not  been 
altered by any chemical process. 

Understanding the underlying factors forming the total production costs of both types 
of  products  helps  understanding  their  effect  on  the  biomass  availability  and  division 
between energetic and material use. 

Costs of harvesting of firewood are not examined in this section. Firewood  harvest is 
usually mixture of small scale commercial activity and independent consumer activity 
of  harvesting  small  volumes  of  firewood  to  household  use.  There  are  no  generalized 
supply chains that would enable reasonable comparison. Also markets are of very local 
character and transparent price information is very difficult to find. 

Production costs of forest chips 

The  supply  of  forest  chips  can  vary  depending  on  the  raw  material  type  as  the 
production  of  forest  chips  consists  of  a  series  of  individual  operations  performed  to 
process biomass into commercial fuel and transport it from the stand to the plant. The 
whole system is built around the chipping. The position of the chipper or crusher in the 
procurement chain mostly determines the state of biomass during transportation and, 

81 Ikonen, T. and Asikainen, A. et al. Economic Sustainability of Biomass Feedstock Supply. IEA Bioenergy: 
Task 43: TR2013:01 
82 Laitila, J. et al. Metsähakkeen hankinta- ja toimituslogistiikan haasteet ja kehittämistarpeet. Espoo 2010. 
VTT Tiedotteita – Research Notes 2564 
83  Ihalainen,  T.  and  Nissinen,  A.  Kustannustekijöiden  vaikutukset  bioenergian  tuotannon  arvoketjussa. 
Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 166 

August 2014  96 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

therefore, whether subsequent machines are dependent on each other. Chipping may 
take  place  at  the  harvesting  site,  roadside  or  landing  site,  terminal  storage  or  at  the 
plant  where  the  chips  are  eventually  used.  Table  5  presents  the  commonly  utilized 
supply chains of forest chips in the EU. 

Table 5  

Forest chip supply chains used in the EU27 

Supply 
Chain 

Raw materials 

Location 

Tops and Branches 

1. Roadside 
Chipping 

Small size 
stemwood 

Stumps 

Tops and Branches 

Small size 
stemwood 

Stumps 

Pulpwood logs 

Defect sawlogs 

2. 
Terminal 
Chipping 

Forest 
Stand 

Wood is 
forwarded to 
the roadside 

Roadside 

Terminal 

Wood is 
chipped at 
the roadside 
with mobile 
chipper to a 
chip truck 

- 

Wood is 
forwarded to 
the roadside 

Wood is 
loaded on 
truck and 
transported to 
a terminal 

Wood is 
chipped 
at the 
terminal 
with 
larger 
stationary 
or mobile 
chipper 
and 
loaded to 
chip truck 

Plant 
Reception 

Forest chips 
arrive at the 
plant 

Forest chips 
arrive at the 
plant 

Tops and Branches  Wood is 

Small size 
stemwood 

Stumps 

Pulpwood logs 

Defect sawlogs 

3. 
Plant 
Chipping 

Source: Indufor 

forwarded to 
the 
roadside. 
Tops and 
branches or 
small 
diameter 
stemwood 
can be 
bundled with 
purpose 
built 
machine 

Bulk wood or 
bundles are 
loaded on 
truck and 
transported to 
a terminal. 

- 

Bulk wood or 
bundles are 
chipped at the 
plant 

Several  factors  affect  the  total  cost  of  biomass  supply.  Harvesting  method  and 
conditions  such  as  terrain,  average  tree  size  and  density,  have  effect  on  the 
productivity and production cost. Harvesting of tops and branches has the lowest cost 
since  it  involves  only  loading  leftover  material  to  the  forwarder  cargo  space  and 
hauling it  to  the  roadside  storage  after  final  felling.  When  forest  chip  raw  material is 
acquired from thinning operations in younger stands the tree size is a lot smaller than 
in  harvesting  operations  in  mid-aged  or  mature  forest  stand.  This  is  the  case  in 
countries where demand of pulpwood from to material purposes is high.  Smaller stem 
size  means  that  lower  accumulated  volume  per  machine  working  hour.  Because  the 
price  of  the  forest  chip  raw  material  is  low,  poor  productivity  has  been  the  main 
restriction  in  procurement  of  forest  chips  from  younger  stands.    Today  purpose  built 

August 2014  97 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

harvesters, using accumulating harvester heads capable of processing multiple stems 
simultaneously,  are  used  in  these  harvesting  sites.  When  forest  chips  are  sourced 
from stands, with average stem size comparable to pulpwood, regular harvesters and 
forwarders can be used. Harvesting costs depend also on fuel and labour cost, which 
differ by country depending on the local level of fuel price and wages. 

Location of chipping determines much of the costs of chipping, transport and required 
investment. Forest chip supply chains can be divided to centralized and decentralized 
depending  on  the  location  of  the  chipper.  Centralized  chipping  operation  and  storing 
chips  in  terminal  is  a  cost  efficient  option  for  large  scale  CHP  plants.  Decentralized 
supply chain such as roadside  chipping can be applied as general supply chain for all 
sizes of plants. 

Moisture content of forest chips is the most important single quality attribute of forest 
chips84.  It  affects  heating  value,  storage  properties,  chipping  and  transport  costs. 
Moisture  in  wood  decreases  energy  content.  This  means  that  if  moisture  content  of 
wood  is  increased  more  volume  and  consequently  increased  amount  of  truckloads  of 
forest  chips  need  to  be  supplied  to  heating  plant  to  receive  the  target  amount  of 
energy.  As  an  outcome  the  total  cost  and  the  resulted  CO2  emissions  from  transport 
are  increased.  In  a  study  by  Acuna  et  al.  (2012)  total  supply  costs  of  forest  chips  in 
CHP  plant  in  Finland  was  estimated  up  to  33%  lower  with  proper  drying  applied  for 
forest chips raw material in the supply chain. 

Figure 67 presents costs of forest chips supplied with various supply chains in different 
EU countries. By country the total supply cost varies by used raw material and chipper 
location. Also, in general the supply cost of tops and branches is lower than the supply 
of forest chips from roundwood, small-size whole trees or stems. No direct conclusions 
of the cost levels in different countries can be made, however they give a view on the 
cost level in cases, where the Nordic forest chip supply chains are adopted to various 
conditions in different parts of the EU. 

In Spain long forwarding and transport distances and slower driving speed caused by 
mountainous  terrain  are  expected  to  increase  the  unit  costs.  Also  allowable  load  size 
for trucks is Spain is only 44 tonnes (64-76 tonnes in Finland). Transport is decreasing 
the cost efficiency. 

In  Scotland  with  decentralized  space  heating  infrastructure,  the  district  heating 
networks  are  considerably  smaller.  In  the  UK  forest  chips  are  supplied  to  disperse 
small district heating facilities using terminals. Also forest road network does not allow 
access  to  the  forest  during  winter,  because  muddy  roads  do  not  sustain  traffic. 
Terminals  are  thus  required  as  storage  points  of  forest  chips  over  longer  period  of 
time. 

Finland (and Sweden) has been a forerunner of forest chip use in the EU. Centralized 
and decentralized supply chains have been in operation already for decades. Therefore 
efficient utilization of all supply types has evolved in both countries. The Nordic supply 
chain of logging resides is the most cost  competitive alternative among the reviewed 
supply  chains.  Supply  of  forest  chips  from  roundwood  is  still  costly  in  the  Nordic 
countries  because  the  supply  is  focusing  to  sites  with  small  average  stem  size.  Also 
labour and fuel costs are high in the EU standards. 

In  Poland  most  of  the  forest  areas  are  located  on  sandy  soils  accessible  almost 
through  the  year.  Species  composition  in  Poland  does  not  favour  use  of  tops  and 

84 Sikanen, L. 2011 Vesi polttoaineessa, merkitys ja hallinta. Presentation. 

August 2014  98 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

branches from final fellings as the forests are pine dominated, which has lower crown 
and  branch  biomass  volume,  meaning  that  energy  content  of  harvest  per  hectare  is 
reduced. In this case the supply chain was based on mechanized harvesting, although 
only  5%  of  total  logging  in  Poland  is  done  with  a  harvester.  Manual  chainsaw 
harvesting can be expected increase the cost. 

Figure 67 

Supply costs of forest chips of various supply chains in selected countries 

(*) Anttila, P. et.al. 2011, (**) Asikainen, A. et. al. 2011 (***) Laitila, J. et. al. 2010 

Volume  of  tops  and  branches  is  relative  to  the  harvested  volume  of  sawlogs  as  both 
are sourced mainly from final felling site. As tops and branches are the cheapest raw 
material,  ensuring  the  availability  of  sawlogs  to  sawmills  enables  more  efficient 
utilization of forest chips from this “low cost” source. Potential of forest chips is largely 
unutilized  in  many  countries.  Additional  harvest  of  wood  for  energy  purposes  means 
increased  use  of  existing  roads.  This  means  that  if  the  supplied  forest  chip  volumes 
are  increased,  access  to  forest  and  good  condition  of  road  infrastructure  needs  to  be 
ensured.  Therefore  investments  to  forest  road  infrastructure  and  increase  in  forest 
road maintenance costs can be expected. 

In general the supply costs vary greatly depending on the forest conditions, transport 
infrastructure,  used  machinery  and  energy  infrastructure.  Same  supply  solutions 
cannot be applied to all countries but have to be developed in suitable forms through 
experience,  case  by  case.  Countries  with  wood  supply  developed  around  mechanized 
harvesting machinery can be expected to have good opportunities in quickly increasing 
volumes  of  forest  chips.  Entrepreneurs  are  able  to  use  the  existing  machinery  for 
harvesting  regardless  of  final  use  (material/energy)  of  the  wood.  In  countries  with 

August 2014  99 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

supply  based  on  manual  harvesting,  major  restructuring  and  investments  to 
mechanized harvesting equipment will be needed. 

Production costs of wood pellets 

Production  of  wood  pellets  follows  several  processes  from  reception  and  storing  of 
wood  raw  material  to  grinding  and  drying  the  wood  biomass,  and  pelletizing  it.  In 
pelletizing  process  wood  pellets  are  formed  under  high  temperature  and  pressure, 
where  the  wood  particles  will  fuse  into  a  solid  mass,  forming  a  pellet.  Ready  pellets 
are  cooled  to  normal  temperature  and  sieved  to  remove  crumbles  and  dust.  Finally 
wood pellets are  stored and packed to desired package size, ready to be transported 
to the customer. 

Figure 68 shows the cost structure of wood pellet production in Germany, Sweden and 
Russia according to data collected by Indufor. The illustrated costs are based on data 
from actual wood pellet producers in respective countries. All reference mills are using 
industrial  by-products  as  raw  materials  effect  of  change  in  feedstock  base  to  fresh 
wood biomass is discussed further in this section. 

Figure 68 

Wood pellet production costs in Germany, Sweden and Russia 

EUR/MWh

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Depreciation

General & Admin.

Other Manuf. Cost

Energy

Labor

Raw material

Germany

Sweden

Russia

Source: Indufor database 

Raw  material  cost  constitutes  the  major  part  of  pellet  production  costs.  The  raw 
material  is  most  costly  in  absolute  and  relative  terms  in  Germany.  In  Sweden  and 
where the competition of industrial by-products less evident the price is slightly lower. 
At the moment, scarcity of industrial by-products is not a problem in Russia. Sources 
are  of  plenty  and  the  price  of  the  feedstock  at  the  pellet  mill  can  be  even  zero  plus 
transportation from the vendor sawmill. 

The  wood  pellet  production  is  not  labour  intensive  as  the  cost  of  labour  constitutes 
about 10% of total costs in the EU and even less in Russia. In Germany and Sweden 
energy and depreciation costs are also about 10% of total costs.  In  Russia the share 

August 2014  100 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

of depreciation is higher because of typically higher discount rate. Labour and energy 
costs are naturally linked to local wages and price level electricity. 

Wood  pellet  manufacturing  started  integrated  to  sawmilling  industry,  where  the  idea 
was to refine cheap by-product at the site as value adding product. Wood pellet mills 
integrated to  sawmills still exist but the increased demand has  emerged independent 
pellet industry. 

In  Sweden  wood  pellet  mills  have  utilized  the  industrial  by-product  resources 
efficiently  integrated  to  the  sawmilling  industry.  In  Germany,  pellet  companies  and 
mills  exist  mostly  independent  of  large  sawmilling  industry.  However,  the  connection 
of pellet and sawmilling industry is strong due to typically close distance between the 
mills.  In  Germany  the  competition  for  industrial  by-products  between  the  local  wood 
based panels and pulp industry is evident. Pellet mills have so far been able to source 
raw  material.  However,  since  2007  the  by-product  flows  have  had  a  general 
decreasing  trend  in  both  Sweden  and  Germany  due  to  decreased  sawmilling  activity. 
In  both  countries  producers  are  seeking  opportunities  to  use  small  diameter 
roundwood  as  pellet  raw  material  to  respond  to  lower  available  volumes  of  industrial 
by-products and on the other hand increasing demand of wood pellets5.  

As “easy” feedstock has been utilized, increased use of roundwood as wood pellet raw 
material is likely in the future. This means also increase in the wood pellet production 
costs.  Roundwood  may  be  more  abundant  resource  but  it  may  be  more  expensive 
especially  compared  to  lower  quality  industrial  residues.  Also  the  use  of  fresh 
roundwood requires pellet mills to invest to debarking, chipping and additional drying 
machinery  capacity.  For  this  reason  raw  material,  energy  and  depreciation  costs  can 
be  expected  to  increase  in  the  future.  In  a  study  by  Ihalainen  and  Sikanen85  (2010) 
pellet production costs were compared between the use of industrial by-products and 
roundwood.  Use  of  roundwood  as  raw  material  increased  the  total  production  costs 
almost 30%. 

Russian wood pellet manufacturers have the advantage of utilizing cheap raw material 
sources  from  both  industrial  residues  and  roundwood.  Nevertheless,  success  of 
Russian  pellet  manufacturers  in  the  EU  markets  is  dependent  on  their  ability  to 
respond  to  growing  requirements  in  terms  of  wood  pellet  quality  standards  and 
sustainability requirements. Large energy companies are bound to strict sustainability 
criteria requiring wood sourced from FSC certified forests. 

What is not shown in the figure is the cost of transportation logistics of wood pellets. 
The effect of this is particularly important for bulk distribution of wood pellets exported 
from Russia to the EU markets. Although the absolute production cost of wood pellets 
are  smaller  in  Russia,  the  transportation  cost  to  the  consumer  sets  off  the  difference 
between European and Russian manufacturers. Especially small scale mills are forced 
to  use  traders  to  get  their  products  to  markets  due  to  insufficient  volumes  for 
exporting.  Wood  pellet  prices  from  several  sources  are  discussed  further  in  wood 
pellets price section. 

85  Ihalainen,  T.  and  Sikanen,  L.  Kustannustekijöiden  vaikutukset  pelletintuotannon  arvoketjussa.  Finnish 
Forest Research Institute 2010. 

August 2014  101 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

4.1.2 Agricultural biomass  

Residues  may  be  desirable  raw  materials,  because  utilizing  them  does  not  require 
recovering  the  costs  of  production:  they  are  already  covered  by  food  and  feed 
production86. 

In comparison to other feedstocks, such as dedicated biofuel crops, residues typically 
have  the  lowest  cost  as  e.g.  straw  and  bagasse  from  sugar  cane  can  be  collected  at 
harvest. However, feedstock costs for agricultural residues vary. They may be modest 
if  agricultural  residues  can  be  collected  and  transported  over  short  distances.  Costs 
can  even  be  negative  for  residues  for  which  disposal  fees  can  be  avoided  by  using 
them for energy production. On the other hand, transport costs can be relatively very 
high if there are significant distances involved, as the energy density of biomass from 
this  source  is  usually  low.  These  costs  are  an  important  reason  for  agricultural 
residues  often  being  used  locally.  Still,  there  can  be  significant  commercial  local 
markets. A problem with low-cost agricultural residue feedstocks is that the amount of 
feedstock  available  depends  on  the  agricultural  markets  for  the  primary  production 
goods, e.g. the availability of bagasse on the ethanol and sugar markets. 

Manure,  for  example,  is  a  scarce  resource  in  some  regions,  while  in  others  it  is  too 
abundant.  Under  the  EU  Nitrate  Directive  in  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones  farmers  are 
obliged  to  pay  for  the  disposal  of  excess  manure  (above  170  kg  N/ha).  It  can  be 
assumed that farmers with excess manure have to face costs to get it disposed. Within 
the “Biomass Futures” project it was assumed that in regions where the deposition of 
Nitrogen  exceeds  the  value  of  170  kg  Nitrogen/ha  manure  would  be  available  for 
bioenergy production at no cost for the feedstock. In regions with limited or no excess 
prices of around 40 Euro/ton were considered. 

Costs of biomass supply increase when dedicated crops for energy use are produced. 
Yield and production costs data for Short Rotation Forestry (SRF) crops is mainly from 
trial plots and pilot production schemes. The few cost and revenue estimates available 
show  significant  variation.  The  variation  in  costs  and  yields  may  reflect  varying 
planting conditions – establishing SRF on degraded land is likely to be more costly and 
lower  yielding  than  planting  on  land  of  high  productivity.  Costs  for  SRF  and  grasses 
like miscanthus are relatively high for the establishment of the plantation but lower for 
maintenance and harvest87.  

Considering  the  value  chain  for  bioenergy  crops,  four  major  cost  items  can  be 
identified: land costs, labour costs, capital costs and fertilizer costs. Together they are 
the total cost of an agricultural production system. Labour cost consists of wages and 
labour input and can be defined as hectare based cost. Capital cost consists of inputs 
like machinery and prices (e.g. for machinery). Capital cost, land cost and labour cost 
are  hectare  based.  Only  fertilizer  costs  are  yield  based  and  consist  of  fertilizer  prices 
and fertilizer input (Figure 69). 

86  Gallagher  et  al.  (2003):  Biomass  from  Crop  Residues:  Cost  and  Supply  Estimates.  U.S.  Department of 
Agriculture,  Office  of  the  Chief  Economist,  Office  of  Energy  Policy  and  New  Uses.  Agricultural  Economic 
Report No. 819 
87  Hauk,  S.,  Knoke,  T.,  &  Wittkopf,  S.  (2014).  Economic  evaluation  of  short  rotation  coppice  systems  for 
energy  from  biomass—A  review.  Renewable  and  Sustainable  Energy  Reviews,  29(0),  435–448. 
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.103 

August 2014  102 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 69 

Cost factors in the agricultural production system  

Source: de Wit 2010 

The  cultivation  of  ligno-cellulosic  crops  has  total  capital  expenditures  of  143  €/ha  for 
poplar, 156 €/ha for willow and 576 €/ha for miscanthus. Poplar and willow have the 
largest  expenses  in  planting  and  plants  (94%  and  76%).  Miscanthus  cultivation  is 
dominated  with  64%  by  harvesting,  field  transport  and  storage  (de  Witt  2010).  SRC 
costs  around  2  500  Pound  per  hectare  to  establish  but  is  eligible  for  a  50%  planting 
grant through the Energy Crops Scheme88. 

The  production  costs  for  agricultural  residue  stems  from  collection  in  the  field,  field 
transport and transport to an intermediate site or end-use site. De Witt calculated with 
cost  data  on  agricultural  residues  between  1.1  and  6.5  €/GJError!  Bookmark  not 
defined. 

The  production  costs  at  which  biomass  resources  are  available  in  Europe  vary 
considerably,  with  significantly  lower  costs  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  than  in 
Western Europe. This is due to lower land rent costs and labour costs for Central and 
Eastern  Europe.  The  greater  part  of  the  first  generation  feedstock  supply is  available 
at  production  costs  of  5–15  GJ/a  compared  to  between  1.5  and  4.5  GJ/a  for  second 
generation  feedstocks.  Cost  differences  can  be  attributed  to  the  relatively  extensive 
production practices and high yields for second generation feedstocks. The majority of 
agricultural residues can be made available to costs between 1 and 4 GJ/a. 

4.1.3 Biogenic waste 

The utilisation of biogenic waste for energy production is economically feasible on the 
basis  of  cost.  Considering  the  increasing  competition  between  waste  material  for 
recovery,  reuse  and  recycling  and  recovery  of  wastes  and  residues  for  energy  use, 
these will be used for energy-related purposes only if the cost of undertaking such an 
operation is competitive against other material uses along the value chain. 

Due  to  lack  of  available  data  on  management  costs  of  several  biogenic  waste 
categories  (i.e.  food  waste,  wood  debris  and  textile),  this  section  includes  an 

88 http://www.crops4energy.co.uk/short-rotation-coppice-src/ 

August 2014  103 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

assessment  of  the  collection  and  transport  costs  associated  with    some  of  the  waste 
streams  included  in  the  biological  fraction  of  municipal  solid  waste.  These  are  paper 
and cardboard waste, green waste and sewage sludge. 

Biological fraction of municipal solid waste 

Elbersen et al (2012)Error!  Bookmark  not  defined. report cost levels of the biological fraction 
of municipal solid waste only for the Netherlands in 2020. The same cost levels were 
applied to the rest of the EU countries. 

An EU average of 2010’s costs associated with municipal solid waste amounts to 22.75 
€/tonne.89 

Paper and cardboard waste 

In 2010, an average EU-wide cost of low quality paper of 115€ / tonne is reported in 
Elbersen et al (2012)90.  This translated into a price of 6.3€ / GJ of energy produced. 
To estimate the 2020 or 2030 costs of a tonne of paper and cardboard waste, Elbersen 
et al apply an inflation rate per year to the current prices. 

Green waste 

No  specific  costs  are  connected  to  the  grassland  cuttings,  as  there  are  already 
included in the normal management activities. The costs associated with transport and 
drying  of  road  side  verge  grass  for  energy  production is  assumed  to  be  around  10€/ 
tonne of dry matter for the EU27. An inflation correction factor is applied per year in 
order  to  calculate  2020  and  2030  costs  for  transport  and  other  activities  associated 
with road side verge grass.91 

Sewage sludge 

As for green waste, the cost of sewage sludge is assumed to be 0, except for transport 
and pre-treatment costs, which are estimated to be around 10€ / tonne of dry matter 
for the EU27. 2020 and 2030 costs are calculated by applying a yearly inflation rate.92  

4.2 Biomass market prices 

4.2.1 Wood biomass 

As  illustrated  in  chapter  2.2,  wood  biomass  markets  have  been  increasing  notably 
during the last decade. The general price development of wood fuels has been  stable 
in  comparison  to  the  world  market  prices  of  fossil  fuels  which  have  more  fluctuating 
character. Predictability of wood fuel prices has partly played  a role in the increasing 
demand,  which  has  consequently  influenced  the  steady  increase  of  the  wood  fuel 
prices.  Another  main  cause  for  the  increase  of  wood  fuels  price  is  the  increased 
demand  caused  by  policy  measures  targeting  the  mitigation  of  greenhouse  gas 
emissions. This chapter aims to present aspects that influence the formation of wood 
fuel  prices  also  current  trends  of  different  wood  fuels  (forest  chips,  industrial  by-
products, recovered wood and wood pellets) in several markets are displayed. 

Wood fuel production costs and price formation 

89 Elbersen et al (2012). 
90  Elbersen  et  al  (2012),  Annex  4.  Approach  and  sources  used  for  estimating  price  levels  of  different 
biomass sources 2020 and 2030, p. 86. 
91 Ibid. 
92 Ibid. 

August 2014  104 

 
 
 
                                           
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Development  of  production  costs  is  one  principal  short  term  driver  of  the  wood  fuel 
prices.  This  is  caused  by  the  aforementioned  fact  that  the  costs  of  feedstock 
procurement  can  consist  up  to  80%  of  the  total  costs  of  wood  energy  production. 
Traditionally the price of forest chips has likely been set by the cost of production. In 
some  cases  the  market  price  paid  for  forest  chips  is  too  low  to  cover  the  cost  of 
production.  This  has  been  the  case  e.g.  in  Finland  where  supply  of  forest  chips  from 
small  size  stemwood  from  young  forest  stands  has  not  been  profitable  without  state 
subsidies  paid  to  cover  the  cost  of  harvesting  and  chipping.  On  the  other  hand  the 
production  of  forest  chips  from  tops  and  branches  collected  from  final  felling  sites  is 
profitable  even  without  subsidizing  the  activity  since  the  raw  material  is  ready 
available on site as a by-product of harvesting of sawlogs and pulpwood. 

Prices  of  forest  chips  have  been  steadily increasing in  Finland,  Sweden  and  Germany 
as forest chips has become a major fuel used in district heating and CHP applications. 
Industrial  by-products  were  earlier  widely  used  in  energy  production  as  such  but  as 
the  competition  of  this  raw  material  has  increased,  the  interest  of  energy  producers 
have  turned  to  feedstock  alternatives  that  are  not  as  “easily”  available.  At  the  same 
time  national  level  subsidies  such  as  feed-in  tariffs  or  market  premiums  have 
improved  the  energy  producer’s  wood  paying  capability  casting  an  upward  trend  in 
forest  chips  prices.  This  means  that  the  market  price  of  forest  chips  is  not  anymore 
totally driven by production costs but increasingly by policies and subsidies. 

Also small correlation in the price of oil and price of forest chips can be found. Largely 
mechanized  production  of  forest  chips  require  inputs  of  fossil  diesel  consumed  in  the 
harvesting process. This has a direct link to the production costs of forest chips. 

Relationships between wood fuel and fossil fuel prices 

In a long run high oil price acts as an incentive to use alternative fuels such as wood 
pellets which eventually increases the demand and drives the price upwards. This is a 
process  that  drives  long  term  decisions  in  investment  of  new  technology  for 
combustion of alternative fuels. The most important link between wood and fossil fuel 
prices  lies  in  the  substitutability  of  these  fuels.  Linkage  of  wood  fuel  prices  to 
alternative fuel prices is most evident in large scale use of wood in energy production. 
Co-firing of wood fuels typically occurs in two different large scale applications. In the 
UK, Benelux and Denmark industrial wood pellets are co-combusted with coal in power 
stations.  In  the  Nordic  countries,  mixture  of  wood  fuels  such  as  forest  chips  and 
industrial by-products are combusted in CHP plants together with fossil coal and peat. 
These  kinds  of  facilities  are  flexible  to  switch  between  alternative  fuels  depending  on 
the price of respective fuel (and emission permits). This is supported by technological 
development  in  wood  fuel  sector.  The  expansion  of  torrefied  wood  pellet  markets 
enables the production and use of wood pellets in a very similar way to coal in terms 
of combustion, logistics and storability. 

Wood fuel price connectivity to the development of forest industry sector 

Wood fuel market is connected to all sectors of the wood consuming industry as they 
are not only the producers of final products but also producers of by-products that can 
be  allocated  to  several  different  material  and  energetic  purposes.  Especially  market 
price of industrial by-products and recovered wood is more dependent on what would 
the  competing  users  be  willing  to  pay  for  the  material.  Consequently  wood  energy 
prices  can  influence  or  can  be  influenced  by  the  price  of  wood  as  industrial  raw 
material. 

August 2014  105 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

The  availability  of  inexpensive  raw  material  has  been  an  essential  factor  contributing 
to  the  development  of  industrial  scale  wood  energy  utilization  in  countries  with 
traditionally strong forest industry sector, such as Finland, Sweden and Germany. The 
roundwood consumption of sawmilling industries are contributing to the availability of 
industrial  by-products  as  well  as  forest  chips  produced  from  tops  and  branches  from 
final fellings. This also means that the development of wood fuel market is vulnerable 
to  events  especially  in  the  sawmilling  industry.  The  global  economic  downturn 
experienced  during  2008-2009  cast  strong  recession  to  the  construction  sector. 
Sawmilling  industries  suffered  from  reduced  demand  were  forced  to  cut  down 
production.  This  led  to  substantial  drop  in  availability  of  industrial  by-products  which 
eventually increased their prices notably. 

Wood fuel prices and international trade of wood fuels 

Increasing  share  of  wood  fuels,  mainly  wood  pellets  are  being  traded  within  Europe 
and  between  the  continents.  Usually,  when  trade  of  certain  commodity  increases, 
national markets become merged together and the supply and demand does not have 
to occur in the specific national market. The connection of national markets is visible 
in  the  development  of  market  prices  of  bioenergy  commodities.  E.g.  the  prices  of 
wood pellets in specific market segments have tendency to converge to common level 
and  follow  similar  trends  and  differ  only  by  the  cost  of  transportation.  In  this  sense 
there is a major difference between the markets of forest chips and markets of wood 
pellets.  In  forest  chips  markets,  that  have  more  national  character,  the  price  trends 
have been fluctuating in totally separate ways between some of the major consuming 
countries  (Figure  70).  On  the  other  hand  the  prices  of  wood  pellets  in  industrial 
markets are developing in similar manner and on roughly at the same level regardless 
of geography. 

Current wood fuel prices and trends 

The following section presents an indication of current market price of used wood fuels 
and  trends  for  markets  where  data  is  available.  In  general  the  status  of  wood  fuel 
price  data  in  terms  of  availability  and  transparency  in  many  countries  is  poor. 
Common price quotations and time series following the trends are in many ways at an 
infant  state  but  they  are  developing  as  wood  energy  products  are  being  transformed 
to globally traded commodities.  

Prices are given as per energy unit, tonne or cubic meter depending on the unit which 
the trade is most commonly based on. In wood chips the energy content is the most 
crucial factor defining the quality of fuel, thus the price of forest chips is based on its 
energy content (MWh). Industrial by-products can be used in various segments, thus 
common  volumetric  measurement  of  cubic  meters  is  used  as  the  basis  of  trade.  In 
wood  pellets  trade  the  commonly  referred  unit  is  tonnes.  This  unit  is  used  because 
wood pellets are somewhat uniform commodity with standard density and heat value. 
Also in international trade transport tariffs are based on weight of transported goods. 

Figure  70  shows  the  trend  of  forest  chips  prices  in  three  major  consuming  countries, 
Finland,  Sweden  and  Germany.  Also  coal  prices  are  presented  aside,  because  coal  is 
the common fossil fuel used in district heating and CHP applications that is substituted 
by forest chips. Presented prices include taxes. Price of forest chips has been  steadily 
increasing in all referred countries however the drivers vary depending on the country. 
Sweden  applied  the  tax  on  fossil  fuels  already  in  1991.  This  tax  has  been  one  of  the 
main  drivers  in  increasing  the  use  of  forest  chips  and  wood  pellets  in  Sweden.  The 
effect  of  the  tax  making  coal  a  very  expensive  fuel  in  comparison  to  forest  chips  for 
Swedish  energy  producers  can  be  seen  in  the  figure.  In  Finland  coal  has  retained 

August 2014  106 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

competitiveness against wood fuels for longer time; however the energy tax levied on 
coal increased in 2011 increasing the price notably. The increased demand and slowly 
increasing  forest  chip  prices  are  because  of  state  subsidies  provided  to  cover  unit 
costs  of  forest  chips  production.  Another  factor  increasing  the  competitiveness  of 
forest chips is subsidies of biomass based electricity. In Germany the price of coal has 
remained at a lower level in comparison to forest chips. The competitiveness of forest 
chips  is  based  on  feed  in  tariff  which  is  pair  per  kWh  of  produced  electricity  from 
biomass. 

Figure 70 

Price of forest chips in Finland, Sweden and Germany (delivered) 

h
W
M
/
R
U
E

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Finland

Sweden

Germany

Coal - Sweden

Coal - German Border

Coal - Finland

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: Statistics Finland, Skogsstyrelsen, C.A.R.M.E.N., IEA, Swedish Energy Agency 

In  Figure  71  prices  of  industrial  by-products  in  three  major  producer  and  consumer 
countries  Finland,  Sweden  and  Germany  are  presented.  The  markets  and  pricing  of 
industrial  by-products  differ  notably  between  the  countries.  Prices  for  Finland  and 
Sweden  are  delivered  but  the  German  price,  according  to  EUWID,  is  at  the  mill 
(seller).  This  makes  the  direct  comparison  challenging;  however  the  general  trend  of 
prices in these markets during the period has been increasing. 

Finland  and  Sweden  operate  in  closed  market  of  industrial  by-products.  The  level  of 
integration in raw material sourcing between the sawmilling and pulp industry is high. 
Non-integrated sawmills often make contracts with wood procurement organizations of 
big  integrated  forest  industry  companies.  Non-integrated  sawmilling  companies  sell 
their  by-products  primarily  to  large  integrated  pulp  producing  companies  and 
secondarily  to  wood  pellet  mills  or  energy  use  as  such.  In  Germany  the  markets  of 
industrial  by-products  are  more  active  for  several  reasons.  Sawmilling  company 
structure is more diverse, the level of integration is low, paper industry is mostly using 
recycled  paper  and  the  facilities  are  evenly  spread  within  the  country  making  the 
average  distance  between  supplier  and  buyer  shorter.  Also  the  demand  is  more 
versatile in Germany. In addition to pulp industry and energy consumption large wood 
based panels industry presents large demand. 

August 2014  107 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Recently the market price has been most volatile in Germany where the competition of 
this  raw  material  between  the  mentioned  consumption  segments  is  most  evident. 
Prices  of  industrial  by-products  increased  quickly  in  2009-2010  during  the  financial 
crisis  when  German  sawmills  cut  their  production.  Decline  in  production  reduced  the 
availability of industrial by-products thus increasing the price. 

Swedish  sawmilling  industry  was  not  as  severely  affected  by  the  financial  crisis  and 
the  market  of  industrial  by-products  continued  through  the  period  relatively  stable. 
Sweden  is  not  part  of  the  Eurozone,  thus  the  country  was  able  to  avoid  sawmilling 
industry  recession,  due  to  favourable  exchange  rate  development  of  Swedish  crown. 
Sawnwood production dropped also in Finland during 2009; however the effect to the 
market  price  of  industrial  by-products  was  small.  The  reason  for  moderate  price 
development  is  the  integration  of  forest  industry  and  resulted  lack  of  competition  of 
industrial by-products. 

Figure 71 

Price of industrial by-products (excl. bark) in Finland, Sweden and Germany 

³

m
-
d

i
l

o
s
/
R
U
E

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

Finland

Sweden

Germany

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: Statistics Finland, Indufor data, Skogsstyrelsen, EUWID 

Figure 72 illustrates the prices and historical trends of wood pellets in several markets. 
Compilation  of  wood  pellet  price  statistics  was  used  to  collect  information  of  wood 
pellet prices. Different wood pellet markets following separate price levels and trends 
can be identified. Prices retrieved from Finland, Germany, Austria and PIX continental 
pellet price include price of wood pellets of residential quality. These pellets are of high 
quality  manufactured  from  the  best  available  raw  materials  (clean  and  dry  industrial 
by-products).  Three  price  indices  PIX  Nordic,  Industrial  pellets  ARA  and  Industrial 
pellets  FOB  Baltic  present  the  price  level  of  industrial  wood  pellets  in  three  markets. 
Acronym “ARA” refers to wood pellets shipped from North America to import ports in 
Amsterdam,  Rotterdam  or  Antwerp.  “FOB  Baltic”  refers  to  price  of  industrial  wood 
pellets  at  shipping  ports  of  Latvia  and  Lithuania.  These  wood  pellets  are  produced 
either in Baltic States or Russia. This price does not include the sea transportation cost 
to  the  final  consumer.  PIX  Nordic  represents  the  industrial  wood  pellet  price  (CIF)  in 
Nordic  countries  and  Baltic  States.  This  includes  majorly  price  level  of  wood  pellets 
shipped delivered to coastal CHP plants in Sweden and Finland. 

August 2014  108 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Market  prices  for  Sweden  derived  from  Swedish  Forest  Agency  (Skogsstyrelsen) 
present price level of domestic wood pellet markets. This includes both industrial and 
residential  wood  pellets.  Apart  from  actual  residential  pellet  consumption  sector  and 
large  industrial  CHP  wood  pellet  combustion  plants  the  third  so-called  mid  quality 
grade  is  used  in  medium  scale  district  heating  plants.  Thus  the  presented  Swedish 
market  price  is  set  roughly  in  between  the  residential  and  industrial  wood  pellet 
market segments. 

Prices  of  industrial  and  residential  wood  pellets  are  following  separate  development 
trends thus they need to be observed separately. 

Figure 72 

Price of wood pellets in several markets in the EU 

e
n
n
o
t
/
R
U
E

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Finland

Sweden

Germany

Austria

PIX Nordic

PIX Continental

Industrial pellets ARA

Industrial pellets FOB Baltic

Source: Statistics Finland, Skogsstyrelsen, Deutsche Pelletsinstitut, Propellets Austria, FOEX, Argus  

As illustrated in Figure 73 the prices of industrial pellets have been developing roughly 
at  the  same  level  between  two  major  industrial  wood  pellet  trade  routes  North-
America (ARA) and Russia (Industrial pellets FOB Baltic, PIX  Nordic). Industrial wood 
pellet  prices  are  set  aside  with  coal  price  to  visualize  the  level  against  the  main 
substitute fuel used in CHP and co-generation plants. Measured by merely the market 
price coal is still the cheapest fuel, however policies and set subsidy measures (feed-in 
tariffs  or  market  premiums)  promoting  the  energy  use  of  biomass  improve  the 
competitiveness  of  industrial  wood  pellets  over  coal.  High  taxes  levied  for  coal  in 
Sweden have similar effect on competitiveness of industrial wood pellets. 

The market of industrial wood pellets is characterized by a handful of large pellet end-
users  consuming  majority  of  traded  pellets.  According  to  Argus,  nine  largest  wood 
pellet  plants  consumed  approximately  85%  of  all  industrial  wood  pellets  within  the 
European market. 

August 2014  109 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 73 

Price of wood pellets in industrial markets 

h
W
M
/
R
U
E

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PIX Nordic

Industrial pellets ARA

Industrial pellets FOB Baltic

Sweden

Coal - Western European
Seaports

Coal - Sweden

Source: FOEX, Argus, Skogsstyrelsen, IEA 

In Figure 74 prices of residential wood pellets in several markets are presented aside 
with light fuel oil prices. Light fuel oil has traditionally been the fuel used in residential 
heating  applications  that  pellet  heating  systems  have  been  replacing.  It  can  be  seen 
that  both  in  Finland  and  Germany  the  price  of  light  fuel  oil  has  been  generally  an 
increasing  trend  and  notably  volatile  in  comparison  to  the  moderate  increase  of 
residential  wood  pellet  prices.  In  Germany  and  Austria  state  has  subsidised  wood 
pellet combustion equipment investments in residential scale and small district heating 
segment. Investment support together with the predictability of residential wood pellet 
prices  has  driven  the  increasing  demand  of  residential  wood  pellets  in  Germany, 
Austria, Sweden and Italy. Although the residential wood pellet price is at same level 
with other European markets, the residential wood pellet consumption in Finland is not 
functioning.  The  reason  for  this  is  the  historically low  taxation  of  light  fuel  oil,  cheap 
electricity  and  appearance  of  competitive  and  in  many  cases  more  appealing 
technology  to  residential  heating  markets  (geothermal  heat,  heat  pumps).  The 
consumption  of  residential  wood  pellets  has  been  stagnated  at  level  of  about  70 000 
tonnes/a since 2009. 

August 2014  110 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Figure 74 

Price of wood pellets in residential markets 

120

100

h
W
M
/
R
U
E

80

60

40

20

Finland

Germany

Austria

Sweden

PIX Continental

Light fuel oil - Germany

Light fuel oil - Finland

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source:  Statistics  Finland,  C.A.R.M.E.N.,  Propellets  Austria,  Skogsstyrelsen  FOEX,  Destatis.de,  Finnish 
Petroleum Federation 

The market for recovered wood is a relatively immature market that has been gaining 
significance  during  the  last  decade.  Very  few  sources  related  to  market  prices  of 
recovered  wood  are  available.  Figure  75  presents  price  of  recovered  wood  in  United 
Kingdom  and  Germany.  EUWID  publishes  price  of  recovered  wood  in  Germany 
delivered to user. German prices presented are average of all recovered wood quality 
classes.  Price  of  recovered  wood  in  UK  is  presented  from  statistics  of  British 
Letsrecycle.com website. 

Germany  is  the  biggest  recovered  wood  market  in  the  EU  (see  Figure  26).  Small  to 
very large private waste companies are responsible for collection waste and treatment 
recovered  wood.  Leading  electricity  companies  and  energy  suppliers  consume 
recovered wood in CHP plants. Local, municipal energy suppliers and private investors 
operate  biomass  power  plants  also.  The 
industry  use 
untreated recycled  wood  for  particle  board  and  use  treated  recovered  wood  chips  for 
their  own  power  plants. According  to  BAV  and  EUWID  the  German  market  for 
recovered  wood  is  relatively  balanced.  Compared  to  supply,  the  demand  has  been 
slowly increasing throughout the period but there has not been shortages because of 
imports to domestic market. Increasing demand has caused the general price increase 
of recovered wood in Germany. 

local  particle  board 

In the UK landfill taxes imposed to recovered wood and increasing haulage costs have 
been increasing. Also discussion about complete ban of wood sent to landfill has been 
ongoing, however local wood recycler’s notion is that large majority of utilizable good 
quality  recycled  wood  is  anyway  recycled.  In  the  UK  the  recycled  wood  market  is 
dominated by a multitude of wood recycling companies around the country.  In Figure 
75,  the  average  market  price  for  the  UK  show  the  “gate  fee”  an  individual  must  pay 
for  bringing  wood  raw  material  to  recycling  facility.  So  far  fees  have  been  negative, 
but the best qualities of recovered wood have been attracting positive gate fees, price 

August 2014  111 

 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

paid  for  bringing  wood  to  facility93.  During  2012-13  the  gate  fees  have  been 
increasing.  The  reason  for  this  is  the  reduced  demand  from  wood  based  panels 
industry. Several mills within the markets of UK wood recyclers have cut production or 
shut down through 2012-13. 

Figure 75 

Price of recovered wood in United Kingdom and Germany 

e
n
n
o
t
/
R
U
E

20

15

10

5

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

United Kingdom *

Germany **

Source: Letsrecycle.com, EUWID. (*) Price point, delivered at recovered wood recycling plant. (**) Price point, 
recovered wood treatment plant 

4.2.2 Agricultural biomass   

Prices for agricultural biomass sourced and consumed locally are difficult to obtain and 
no time series data on a comparable basis are available. Prices paid will depend on the 
energy  content  of  the  fuel, its  moisture  content  and  other  properties  that  will impact 
the  costs  of  handling  or  processing  at  the  power  plant  and  their  impact  on  the 
efficiency of generation94. 

4.2.3 Biogenic waste 

As  observed  above,  conversely  to  wood  and  agricultural  biomass,  biogenic  wastes 
cannot  be  considered  as  final  commodities  sold  to  end-users  for  either  energy 
production  or  alternative  material  uses.  The  market  price,  net  of  costs  for  collection 
and transport, is thus assumed to be 0. 

The price of any management activities associated with any biogenic waste categories 
is considered a cost and is discussed in section 4.1.3 above. 

93 Wood Recyclers’ Association (WRA) 
94 IRENA. (2012). Renewable Energy Technologies: Costs Analysis Series - Biomass for Power Generation 
(p. 60). Retrieved from 
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-BIOMASS.pdf 

August 2014  112 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

5 Conclusions 

General conclusions 
Material and energy uses of the wood and agricultural biomass and biogenic waste are 
largely  separate  from  each  other.  Essential  use  of  wood  is  in  material  purposes. 
Interaction and dependencies between material and energy use is most evident within 
this  sector.  Agricultural  biomass  is  first  and  foremost  produced  for  food  and  feed. 
Material  uses  of  biogenic  waste  are  still  much  limited  and  strongly  dependent  on 
effective  ways  to  decontaminate  the  waste.  Thus,  possibilities  for  and  competition 
between energy- and  material uses of the biomass types are quite separate between 
sectors. 

Possible  overlaps  between  the  sectors  could  arise  from  the  establishment  of  short 
rotation forestry for bioenergy on agricultural land, which could possibly decrease the 
demand  of  energy  wood  from  wood  biomass  supply.  Also,  improvements  in  waste 
management  could  make  biogenic  waste,  especially  recovered  wood,  a  more 
important source of feedstock for both material and energy production. 

There  are  large  differences  within  biomass  production  and  utilization  between  the 
EU28  countries,  as  geographical  conditions,  infrastructure  and  population  densities 
vary  greatly.  Germany  and  France  are  major  producers  of  both  wood  biomass  and 
agricultural biomass; otherwise there is a clear geographical division between the two 
types of biomass. Sweden and Finland stand out as producers of wood biomass, while 
Spain  and  Italy  are  large  producers  of  agricultural  biomass.  Production  of  biogenic 
waste  is  related  to  the  population  of  the  countries,  with  Italy,  France,  the  UK  and 
Germany being the largest producers. 

National  and  international  trade  is  well  established  within  wood  biomass  products, 
while almost non-existent within agricultural biomass and biogenic waste. Due to the 
bulkiness  of  the  products,  transport  prices  play  a  central  role  in  all  trade  of  biomass 
products. 

Wood biomass 
Material and energetic use of wood raw material from domestic sources in the EU will 
be  increasingly  interconnected.  This  is  already  the  situation,  as  the  different 
proportions  of  felled  trees  and  consequent  by-products  of  industrial  processing  are 
directed  to  various  end  uses,  depending  on  the  wood  paying  capability  of  local  wood 
consuming industries.  Although  being low  margin  products,  subsidies  paid  for  energy 
that  is  produced  using  wood  and  other  biomass  have  increased  the  wood  paying 
capacity of energy producing industries throughout the EU. 

Sawmills  remain  to  be  in  a  key  position  to  keep  the  market  of  wood  raw  material 
running for both material and energy uses because sawlogs are the most valuable part 
of a tree and thus the most interesting from the producer’s point of view. Procurement 
of proportions with lesser value (pulpwood, tops and branches) is tightly integrated to 
the  sawlogs  supply.  Consequently,  better  sawlogs  availability  improves  also  raw 
material  acquisition  possibilities  of  pulp  and  paper,  woodworking  and  bioenergy 
industries. 

Firewood consumption in small scale stoves and fireplaces remains popular in the EU. 
Indirectly, it can be deduced that this wood consuming sector is major. Due to lack of 
solid  data  on  firewood  consumption,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  to  which  extent 
firewood consumption replaces other possible end uses of the limited amount of wood 
available, however it is of a high importance since it is estimated to account for about 
1/3 of total wood biomass used for energy. 

August 2014  113 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Use of forest chips has increased in several countries and there is potential for further 
increase.  However,  several  challenges  need  to  be  addressed  as  the  supply  of  forest 
chips  is  expected  to  move  to  areas  with  poorer  resources  and  longer  transport 
distances.  The  supply  of  forest  chips  for  energy  is  also  highly  dependent  on  public 
subsidies. The end product has low added value, and the profitability depends on how 
efficiently  the  production  costs  can  be  lowered  by  applying  efficient  harvesting 
technology  and  supply  organization.  In  order  to  lower  the  supply  costs,  special 
development  needs  to  be  targeted  especially  on  storage  management,  infrastructure 
and harvesting machinery development. 

The pool of industrial by-products is almost completely utilized. Increasing competition 
of roundwood resources between the pulp, wood based panels industry and bioenergy 
use can be expected since the total sawnwood production is expected to increase only 
marginally.  In  this  situation  further  expansion  of  domestic  wood  pellet  industry  and 
residential  wood  pellet  heating  sector  is  possible  only  by  increasing  the  production 
expanding the raw material base to using roundwood as wood pellet raw material.  

In  consumption  of  industrial  wood  pellets,  it  is  likely  that  the  EU  will  become  even 
more  dependent  on  imports.  Globally,  the  EU  will  remain  the  top  consumer. 
Nevertheless, the expansion of wood pellet consumption in the Asian region is already 
directing  trade  flows,  e.g.  from  Western  Canada,  away  from  Europe.  Russia  is 
expected  to  become  more  important  for  European  energy  companies’  wood  pellet 
procurement;  however  issues  related  to  ensuring  sustainably  produced  wood  raw 
material  and  supply  security  through  established  trade  connections  need  to  be 
addressed. 

The  success  and  technological  development  of  pilot  projects  of  wood  based  liquid 
biofuels  production  will  define  whether  it  will  become  a  growing  wood  consuming 
industry.  However,  the  production  will  likely  be  integrated  to  existing  chemical  pulp 
industry. 

Recovered  wood  presents  a  potential  raw  material  source  for  material  uses  and 
energy.  Trade  and  markets  are  the  most  developed  in  the  EU  countries  with  dense 
population,  established  standardization  and  legislation  defining  the  possible  uses 
(material and energy) based on the level of contamination. 

Competitiveness of wood fuels has traditionally been burdened by their low price and 
relatively  high  sourcing  costs.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  wood  energy 
commodities  are  low  margin  products  with  limited  marketability.  In  many  cases  the 
economic  feasibility  can  be  reached  by  applying  subsidies  aimed  at  covering 
production  or  investment  costs  or  increasing  price  paid  for  the  final  product.  The 
market  prices  of  wood  biomass  commodities  for  energy  have  been  generally 
increasing  throughout  the  last  decade  due  to  increasing  demand.  Advantage  in 
comparison  to  the  fossil  fuels  characterized  by  fluctuating  price  trends  is  their  stable 
price development. 

It is likely that wood raw material price will increase further. Two possible pathways to 
respond  to  this  challenge  can  be  envisaged.  In  direct  energy  use  of  primary  wood 
resources  competitiveness  can  be  increased  by  reducing  the  feedstock  supply  costs 
with  development  of  technology,  working  methods,  logistics  and  infrastructure. 
Industries concentrating on refining the higher value added wood energy commodities 
have  probably  less  influence  on  the  price  of  available  raw  material.  In  this  case  the 
profitability needs to be created by adding value to the final product with technological 
innovations and global markets. 

August 2014  114 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Agricultural biomass 
Agricultural biomass demand is sensitive not only to supply potentials, but also to total 
energy  demand  and  competitiveness  of  alternative  energy  supply  options.  In  the 
future, a rationalisation of agriculture, especially in developing countries, is necessary 
to satisfy and compensate the growing demand for food. 

Bioenergy  from  agriculture  is  today  mainly  used  for  biofuels  in  the  transport  sector. 
The  focus  within  this  study  was  not  on  biofuels  for  transport,  but  considered 
woody/ligno-cellulosic  biomass,  cropping  residues  and  residues  from  livestock. 
Biomass from ligno-cellulosic energy crops can contribute to primary energy supply in 
the short term in heat and electricity applications, in the long term for biofuels. 

Perennial energy crops are an alternative to conventional forestry to increase biomass 
production.  Short  rotation  coppice  can  fill  the  gap  between  the  demand  for  biomass 
and  the  current  supply.  The  cropping  area  of  cellulosic  energy  crops  has  increased 
steadily  but  cellulosic  energy  crops  are  very  unevenly  distributed  over  the  EU 
countries. It is assumed that in 2030 perennial crops cultivated in the EU would be 50 
times  as  much  as  2011.  Cropping  with  perennials  will  remain  underutilized  domestic 
sources  because  at  the  domestic  prices  they  can  hardly  compete  with  imported 
resources.  Stricter  sustainability  criteria  will increase  the  demand  for  residues,  waste 
and perennials. This will create a larger demand for ligno-cellulosic materials which is 
likely to lead to larger utilization of domestic wastes and cropped biomass. Therefore 
the  development  and  deployment  of  perennial  crops  (in  particular  in  developing 
countries) are important in case of a bioenergy use in the long run. Furthermore, the 
supply  systems  must  be  adapted  to  local  conditions,  e.g.,  for  specific  agricultural, 
climatic, and socio-economic conditions. 

Cropping  residues  are  determined  by  crop  type  and  yields.  The  quantity  amount  of 
crop  residues  that  can  be  removed  from  the  field  without  significantly  affecting  soil 
fertility is debated and depends largely on regional conditions. Therefore the potentials 
vary  within  EU-countries.  Nevertheless,  cropping  residues  are  an  attractive  resource 
with high potentials for future use. Agricultural and forestry residues could fulfil more 
than  half  of  the  biomass  demand,  followed  by  wastes  and  perennial  crops.  A 
significant amount of agricultural residues can be expected to be available for energy 
purposes  in  2020,  most  of  them  from  cereal  straw.  Energy  crops  are  expected  to  be 
able to meet the major part of the increasing biomass demand. 

From a global point of view an increasing demand for agricultural resources enhanced 
the  competition  of  land  use.  To  cover  the  global  demand  and  to  achieve  global 
bioenergy  targets  in  the  longer  term  efforts  need  to  be  directed  at  increasing  yields 
and  modernizing  agriculture  especially  in  regions  such  as  Africa,  Far  East  and  Latin 
America.  Avoiding  land  pressure  and  food  insecurity  the  global  supply  should  be 
encouraged using residues and wastes. 

Biogenic waste 
An  overall  figure  of  the  current  EU  supply  and  demand  of  biogenic  waste  for  energy 
production  and  material  uses  is  not  possible  to  estimate  due  to  much  uncertainty 
around  data  quality  and  the  coverage  of  the  biodegradable  waste  statistics.  When 
available, estimates per type of biodegradable waste stream are provided. 

The  greatest  amount  of  available  waste  comes  from  food  waste  and  paper  and 
cardboard  waste.  The  availability  of  the  different  categories  of  waste  is  linked  to  the 
size  of  each  Member  State  –  for  example,  major  producers  of  paper  and  cardboard 
waste are the UK, Germany, France and Italy. 

August 2014  115 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

Given  the  increasing  recycling  rates  for  most  of  municipal  and  food  waste  sub-
categories taken into account in the present study, it is estimated that the availability 
of biogenic waste for energy production will be decreasing over time. 

The competition between the use of the various streams of biogenic waste for material 
purposes  or  for  energy  production  is  increasingly  apparent  and  depends  on  the 
profitability of either of those activities. Composting, as opposed to energy production, 
is a major material use of the biomass fraction of mixed municipal waste, as well as of 
food waste. In addition, recycling of paper and cardboard waste is prioritized in the EU 
waste  hierarchy  and  currently  virtually  all  waste  and  cardboard  paper  are  reused  for 
recycling. 

A full assessment of intra- and extra-EU trade flows of the different biological fractions 
of  municipal  solid  waste  and  of  food  waste  is  not  possible  due  to  lack  of  data. 
However, trade flows seem to be very limited, as not profitable, either because of the 
low  energy  content-ratio  (i.e.  food  waste,  green  waste,  dried  sewage  sludge)  or 
because of the physical properties of some waste categories (i.e. wood debris is bulky) 
which make them non feasible for transport. Thus the changes in supply and demand 
of biogenic waste in other regions of the world are unlikely to have major effect in the 
EU. 

Since  biogenic  waste  would  not  constitute  final  commodity  sold  to  end-users,  all 
information available has been classified as a cost, instead of a price. The cost among 
the  different  categories  of  biogenic  waste  varies  widely,  but  in  several  cases  is 
identical  for  all  Member  States  (i.e.  paper  and  cardboard,  green  waste,  and  sewage 
sludge).  

August 2014  116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

References 
1  Mantau,  U.  et  al.  2010:  EUwood  –  Real  potential  for  changes  in growth  and use  of 
EU forests. Final report. 

2  Indufor  2013:  Study  on  the  Wood  Raw  Material  Supply  and  Demand  for  the  EU 
Wood Processing Industries 

3 Asikainen A. et al. 2008. Forest energy potential in Europe (EU27). Working Papers 
of the Finnish Forest Research institute 69 

4 Diaz Yanez, O et al. 2013. Forest Chips for Energy in Europe: Current Procurement 
Methods and Potentials. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 21 (2013) 

5  IEA  Bioenergy  –  Task  40:  Sustainable  International  Bioenergy  Trade:  Global  Wood 
Pellet Industry Market and Trade Study 

6  Sikkema  R.  et  al.  2011.  The  European  wood  pellet  markets:  current  status  and 
prospects for 2020 

7 Verhoest C., Ryckmans Y. 2012 Industrial Wood Pellets Report. Laborelec, Gdf Svez. 
Supported by Intelligent Energy Europe 

8 The Risk of Indirect Wood Use Change, Pöyry Management Consulting 2014 

9 Used wood in the EU – Part 1, Classification, properties and practices. BioNorm II – 
Pre Normative research on solid biofuels for improved European standards 

10 3rd European COST E31 Conference – Management of Recovered Wood, Reaching 
a Higher Technical, Economic and Environmental Standard in Europe 

11 Searle and Malins (2013) Availability of cellulosic residues and wastes in the EU, p 
7, and Mantau et al (2010) EU wood - Real potential for changes in growth and use of 
EU forests. Final report. Hamburg/Germany, June 2010. (2010), p. 29. 

12 Mantau et al (2013), p. 29. 

13  ETC/SCP  (2011)  Projections  of  Municipal  Waste  Management  and  Greenhouse 
Gases. 
III. 
http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/wp/2011wp4 

ETC/SCP 

4/2011, 

working 

Annex 

paper 

14    United  Nations  Department  of  Economic  and  Social  Affairs/Population  Division. 
World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. 

15 Bauen, A. et al. Bioenergy – A Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source. A Review of 
Status and Prospects. IEA Bioenergy: ExCo: 2009/06 

16 Indufor data 

17 http://www.biomassfutures.eu 

18 http://www.biofuelstp.eu/downloads/REFUEL_final_road_map.pdf 

19 
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/EcosystemsServicesand
Management/BEE.en.html  

Biomass 

Energy 

Europe: 

20  Limayem,  Alya,  Ricke,  Steven  (2012):  Lignocellulosic  biomass  for  bioethanol 
production:  Current  perspectives,  potential  issues  and  future  prospects.  In:  Progress 
in Energy and Combustion Science 38 (2012) p. 449-467 

21 Plugis, Nick (2012): Outlook for Lignocellulose Derived Fuels. Stanford University 

22 Biocore (2014): (www.biocore-europe.org/institutions.php?id=4) 

August 2014  117 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

23  Eppler,  U;  Petersen,  J.E.  (2007):  Short  Rotation  Forestry,  Short  Rotation  Coppice 
and energy grasses in the European Union: Agro-environmental aspects, present use 
and perspectives. Background paper. 

24 Wickham, J. et al. (2010): A review of past and current research on 

short  rotation  coppice  in  Ireland  and  abroad.  Report  prepared  for  COFORD  and 
Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland 

25 Bauen, AW., Dunnett, AJ., Richter, GM., Dailey, AG., Aylott, M., Casella, E., Taylor, 
G. (2010): Modelling supply and demand of bioenergy from short rotation coppice and 
Miscanthus in the UK. In: Bioresources Technology. 2010 Nov;101(21):8132-43 

26 AEBIOM (2013): European Bioenergy Outlook 2013. Statistical Report. Brussels  

27  Glithero,  Neryssa;  Wilson,  J.  Paul;  Ramsden,  Stephen  J.  (2013):  Prospects  for 
arable  farm  uptake  of  Short  Rotation  Coppice  willow  and  miscanthus  in  England.  In: 
Applied Energy. Jul 2013; 107(100): 209–218 

28  Raschka,  A.;  Carus,  M.  (2012):  Industrial  material  use  of  biomass  Basic  data  for 
Germany, Europe and the world. Project for the Federal Ministry for the Environment, 
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety’s environmental research plan Funding code: 
3710 93 109. Hürth 

29  Zeller,  V.  et  al.  (2012):  Basisinformationen  für  eine  nachhaltige  Nutzung  von 
landwirtschaftlichen  Reststoffen  zur  Energiebereitstellung.  DBFZ  Report  Nr.  13 
http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/yo/DBFZ/13.pdf 

30  Lal,  R.  (2004):  World  crop  residues  production  and  implications  of  its  use  as  a 
biofuel. In: Environment International 31 (2005) 575–584. 

31 Fischer,  G.  et al. (2009): Biofuel production potentials in Europe: Sustainable use 
of  cultivated  land  and  pastures,  Part  II:  Land  use  scenarios.  In:  biomass  and 
bioenergy, July (2009) 1–15 

32  Böttcher,  H.  et  al.  (2010):  Biomass  Energy  Europe.  Illustration  Case  for  Europe. 
Deliverable  6.1.  –  Annex  I.  Funded  by  the  EC    under  7th  Framework  Programm.  No 
213417 

33 BE Sustainable (2012): Sustainable biomass supply in EU. September 8, 2012 

34  Elbersen,  B.  et  al.  (2011):  Securing  a  sustainable  biomass  supply  in  EU  by  2020. 
paper prepared under the Biomass Futures project funded by the Intelligent Energy 

Europe Programme.  

35  Uslu,  Ayla;  Gomez,  Natalia;  Belda,  Martha;  Ciemat,  Both  (2010):  Demand  for 
lignocellulosic  biomass  in  Europe.  Policies,  supply  and  demand  for  lignocellulosic 
biomass. 

36  Witt  de,  M.,  Faaij,  A.  (2010)  European  biomass  resource  potential  and  costs.  In: 
Biomass & Bioenergy 34 (2010) p. 188-202 

37  Ecofys  (2013)  Low  ILUC  potential  of  wastes  and  residues  for  biofuels:  Straw, 
forestry residues, UCO, corn cobs. http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-low-
iluc-potential-of-wastes-and-residues.pdf 

38  Bentsen,  N.;  Felby,  C.  (2011):  Biomass  for  energy  in  the  European  Union  -  a 
review of bioenergy resource assessments. In: Biotechnology for Biofuels 2012, 5:25   

39 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 199 on the landfill of waste, article 2(m), 
OJ L 182 

August 2014  118 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

40  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  19  November  2008  on  waste  and  repealing  certain 
Directives, OJ L 312/3 

41  Searle, S and Malins, C (2013) Availability of cellulosic residues and wastes in the 
EU. 
2013. 
http://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EUcellulosic-waste-
residues_20131022.pdf 

October 

paper, 

white 

42  European  Commission  (2014)  Sewage  Sludge.  European  Commission’s  website. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/ 

43  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste  water 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
treatment. 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271&from=EN 

44  Council  Directive  86/278/EEC  of  12  June  1986  on  the  protection  of  the 
environment,  and  in  particular  of  the  soil,  when  sewage  sludge  is  use  in  agriculture, 
OJ 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278&from=EN 

181. 

L 

45  Eurostat  (2010)  Guidance  on  classification  of  waste  according  to  EWC-Stat 
categories. 

46  Milieu,  WRC  and  RPA  (2008)  Environmental,  economic  and  social  impacts  of  the 
use of sewage sludge on land. Final report. Part I: Overview Report, p. 2. 

47 Eurostat (2010). 

Biomass 

48 
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,18722&_dad=porta
l&_schema=PORTAL 

Sewage 

(2014) 

energy 

centre 

sludge. 

49 European Commission (2011) The Textile and Clothing sector and EU trade policy. 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148259.pdf  

50  Friends  of  the  Earth  (2013)  Less  is  more.  Resource  efficiency  through  waste 
collection, recycling and reuse of aluminium, cotton and lithium in Europe 

51 Friends of the Earth (2013) 

52  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  19  November  2008  on  waste  and  repealing  certain 
Directives, OJ L 312/3 

53 Elbersen, B, Startisky, I, Hengeveld, G, Schelhass, M-J, Naeff, H (2012) Atlas of Eu 
biomass  potentials.  Deliverable  3.3:  spatially  detailed  and  quantified  overview  of  EU 
biomass  potential  taking  into  account  the  main  criteria  determining  biomass 
availability  from  different  sources.  A  report  prepared  by  Alterra.  Wageningen,  the 
Netherlands, p. 40. 

54  JRC  (2012)  Technical  report  for  End-of-waste  criteria  on  Biodegradable  waste 
treatment.  Third  Working  Document,  August  2012. 
subject 
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/documents/IPTS_EoW_Biodegradable
_waste_3rd_working_document_wo_line_nr.pdf 

to  biological 

55 European Commission (2010) Preparatory study on food waste across EU27, p. 11. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/bio_foodwaste_report.pdf  

56 STOA (2013) Technology options for feeding 10 billion people. Options for Cutting 
Food 
80.  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513515/IPOL-
JOIN_ET%282013%29513515_EN.pdf 

Waste, 

p. 

August 2014  119 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

57  Searle  and  Malins  (2013)  Availability  of  cellulosic  residues  and  wastes  in  the  EU. 
White 
2013. 
http://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EUcellulosic-waste-
residues_20131022.pdf 

October 

paper, 

58 RISI International Pulpwood Trade Review 2012 

59 Wood Resources Quarterly 

60 IEA Bioenergy – Task 40: Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade: Global Wood 
Pellet Industry Market and Trade Study 

61  Wood  Resources  International  LLC  -  Global  Timber  and  Wood  Products  Market 
Update 

62 Blair, L. 2013. Global pellet markets – towards a commodity status? Presentation in 
Brussels 18 June 2013 

63 Wood Pellet Association of Canada 

64  Holmgren,  L.  (2012):  The  global  need  for  food,  fibre  and  fuel.  Kungl.skogs-och 
Lantbruksakademiens, Tiidstrift 

65  OECD,  IEA  (2007):  Bioenergy  Project  Development  and  Biomass  Supply.  Good 
Practise Guidelines. Paris, France  

66  World  Energy  Council 
http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/WER_2013_7_Bioenergy.pdf 

(2013):  World  Energy  Ressources:  Bioenergy. 

67  Dornburg,  V.  et  al.  (2008):  Biomass  Assessment  Assessment  of  global  biomass 
potentials  and  their  links  to  food,  water,  biodiversity,  energy  demand  and  economy: 
Inventory  and  analysis  of  existing  studies.  Performed  within  the  framework  of  the 
Netherlands  Research  Programme  on  Scientific  Assessment  and  Policy  Analysis  for 
Climate Change (WAB) 

68  Liu,  G  (2013)  Food  losses  and  food  waste  in  China:  a  first  estimate.  Industrial 
Ecology  Programme  and  Department  of  Energy  and  Process  engineering. 
http://www.oecd.org/site/agrfcn/food%20losses%20and%20waste%20in%20china_g
ang%20liu.pdf  

69  EPA  (2012)  Municipal  Solid  Waste  Generation,  Recycling,  and  Disposal  in  the  The 
US: 
2012. 
for 
and 
http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf 

Figures 

Facts 

70  The  US  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (2014)  Food  Waste  Basics. 
http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/  

71 Gooch, M., Felfel, A., and Marenick N. (2010) Food Waste in Canada. Value Chain 
Management Centre, George Morris Centre. 

72 EPA (2012) 

73 EPA (2014) Textiles. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/textiles.htm 

74  The  top  export  categories  from  the  US  to  Tanzania  include  $  27  million  for 
waste. 
miscellaneous 
http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/africa/east-africa/tanzania 

articles, 

among 

textile 

textile 

them 

75  Indufor,  Study  on  the  Wood  Raw  Material  Supply  and  Demand  for  the  EU  Wood 
Processing Industries 

76 RISI International Pulpwood Trade Review 2012 

August 2014  120 

 
 
 
 Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future demand for bioenergy – Task 1 Report 

77 IEA BIOENERGY: Task 40: Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade. Global Wood 
Chip Trade for Energy 

78 Blair, L. 2013. Global pellet markets – towards a commodity status? Presentation in 
Brussels 18 June 2013 

79 FAOSTAT: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E  

80 IEA (International Energy Agency) 2012: Technology roadmap - bioenergy for heat 
and power. Paris. 

81  Ikonen,  T.  and  Asikainen,  A.  et  al.  Economic  Sustainability  of  Biomass  Feedstock 
Supply. IEA Bioenergy: Task 43: TR2013:01 

82  Laitila,  J.  et  al.  Metsähakkeen  hankinta-  ja  toimituslogistiikan  haasteet  ja 
kehittämistarpeet. Espoo 2010. VTT Tiedotteita – Research Notes 2564 

83  Ihalainen,  T.  and  Nissinen,  A.  Kustannustekijöiden  vaikutukset  bioenergian 
tuotannon arvoketjussa. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 166 

84 Sikanen, L. 2011 Vesi polttoaineessa, merkitys ja hallinta. Presentation. 

85  Ihalainen,  T.  and  Sikanen,  L.  Kustannustekijöiden  vaikutukset  pelletintuotannon 
arvoketjussa. Finnish Forest Research Institute 2010 

86 Gallagher et al. (2003): Biomass from Crop Residues: Cost and Supply Estimates. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 
and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report No. 819 

87  Hauk,  S.,  Knoke,  T.,  &  Wittkopf,  S.  (2014).  Economic  evaluation  of  short  rotation 
coppice  systems  for  energy  from  biomass—A  review.  Renewable  and  Sustainable 
Energy Reviews, 29(0), 435–448. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.103 

88 http://www.crops4energy.co.uk/short-rotation-coppice-src/ 

89 Elbersen et al (2012). 

90  Elbersen  et  al  (2012),  Annex  4.  Approach  and  sources  used  for  estimating  price 
levels of different biomass sources 2020 and 2030, p. 86. 

91 Ibid. 

92 Ibid. 

93 Wood Recyclers’ Association (WRA) 

94  IRENA.  (2012).  Renewable  Energy  Technologies:  Costs  Analysis  Series  -  Biomass 
for 
from 
(p. 
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analy
sis-BIOMASS.pdf 

Generation 

Retrieved 

Power 

60). 

August 2014  121 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource 
Efficiency of Future EU Demand 
for Bioenergy 

Task 2: Analysis of impacts of biomass 
production on natural resources and the global 
environment 

mmmll 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Authors: 
Klaus Hennenberg (Öko-Insititut e.V.) 
Hannes Böttcher (Öko-Institut e.V.) 
Kirsten Wiegmann (Öko-Institut e.V.) 
Nicklas Forsell (IIASA) 
Anu Korosuo (IIASA) 
Michael Obersteiner (IIASA) 
Catherine Bowyer (IEEP) 
Silvia Nanni (IEEP) 
Ben Allen (IEEP) 
Jana Poláková (IEEP) 
Matias Pekkanen (Indufor) 
Joanne Fitzgerald (EFI) 

Consortium leader: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 

Consortium members: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 
Indufor Oy, Finland 
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), United Kingdom 
Öko-Institut e.V., Germany 
European Forest Institute (EFI), Finland 

September 2014  2 

 
 
 
 
 
        
         
 
       
         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Table of Contents 

6. 

4. 

3. 

5. 

5.1. 
5.2. 

6.1. 
6.2. 

4.1. 
4.2. 

3.1. 
3.2. 

2.1. 
2.2. 
2.3. 

Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 3 
Summary .......................................................................................... 4 
1. 
Introduction ...................................................................................... 5 
2. 
Aim and methodology of Task 2 ........................................................... 6 
Use of the assessment within the project .............................................. 6 
Overview of the structure of the report ................................................. 6 
Biodiversity ....................................................................................... 8 
Impacts from the use of biomass on biodiversity ................................... 8 
Proposals to address biodiversity impacts in the modelling framework ..... 11 
Soil .................................................................................................13 
Impacts from the use of biomass on soil .............................................. 13 
Proposals to address soil impacts in the modelling framework ................ 16 
Water and water pollution ..................................................................18 
Impacts from the use of biomass on water and water pollution ............... 18 
Proposals to address water impacts in the modelling framework ............. 21 
Greenhouse gas emissions .................................................................23 
Direct impacts from the use of biomass on greenhouse gas emissions ..... 23 
Proposals  to  address  impacts  on  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the 
modelling framework ......................................................................... 26 
Indirect land use effects and economic impacts ....................................28 
Impacts from the use of biomass ........................................................ 28 
Proposals to address indirect effects and other land-use impacts in the 
modelling framework ......................................................................... 31 
Cascading use of biomass ..................................................................33 
Defining cascading use ...................................................................... 33 
Possible measures and instruments ..................................................... 35 
Proposals to address cascading use in the modelling framework ............. 36 
Conclusions ......................................................................................38 
References .......................................................................................40 
References  cited  in  the  report  and  used  in  the  in-depth  literature 
review ............................................................................................. 40 
Further  references  considered  in  the  pre-selection  of  the  literature 
review ............................................................................................. 47 
Appendix 1: Methodology ..................................................................59 
Impact on the environment ................................................................ 59 
Cascading use .................................................................................. 61 

8.1. 
8.2. 
8.3. 

11.1. 
11.2. 

7.1. 
7.2. 

9. 
10. 

10.2. 

10.1. 

11. 

8. 

7. 

September 2014  3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

1. Summary 

Impacts of the energetic use of wood on natural resources and the global environment 
are  manifold.  While  many  studies  have  examined  land  use  change  emissions 
associated  with  biofuels,  fewer  studies  can  be  found  that  assessed  implications 
(mostly  GHG  emissions)  of  increasing  the  use  of  wood  for  biofuels  and  for  heat  and 
power compared to alternative uses of the wood. 

The  aim  of  the  literature  review  is  to  provide  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  potential 
impacts of the  energetic use of wood, and its possible increase, on natural resources 
and the global environment, namely biodiversity, soils, water bodies, greenhouse gas 
emissions and indirect land use effects. 

The  literature  review  for  environmental  and  economic  impacts  (both  positive  and 
negative) covers the impacts on biodiversity, soil, water, GHG-emissions, land use and 
indirect effects and economic impacts. A set of 40 references was considered relevant 
after categorization from an initial list of 202 references. Furthermore, nine references 
have been reviewed regarding measures and instruments related to the cascading use 
of biomass. 

The main results from the literature review are:  

  From a biodiversity perspective the review showed that two aspects are of high 

relevance: a) the protection of areas with high biodiversity value and b) sustainable 
extraction rates of dead wood, residues, stumps and old trees.  

  The review showed that most soil impacts are very site specific and require 
respective soil conservation measures (e.g. restriction on residue and stump 
extraction) 

  The identified impacts on water are of lower relevance compared to e.g. impacts on 

biodiversity and soil (focus on rain-fed systems).  

  Strong impacts on greenhouse gas emissions from biomass production occur 
when areas of high carbon stock are converted to bioenergy plantations of low 
carbon stock, but also an increase of wood extraction, including whole tree harvest 
and residue extraction, can lower the carbon stock of forests. 

  Indirect effects and also economic impacts are mainly related to competition 

between different biomass uses (energy, material) and occur for biomass resources 
that can potentially be deployed for different uses e.g. stem wood. Such effects are 
limited for the use of branches, stumps and residues.  

  The most central issues and proposed methods for increasing cascading are the 
need for clear definitions of cascading use over the whole biomass lifecycle; 
imposition of taxes, subsidies and legal measures to promote cascading use; and 
cross-disciplinary dialogue for developing more efficient logistical and technological 
solutions in different cascading stages. 

September 2014  4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

2. Introduction 

The  ‘Roadmap  to  a  Resource  Efficient  Europe’1  and  ‘Roadmap  for  moving  to  a 
competitive  low  carbon  economy  in  2050’2  of  the  European  Commission  identify  land 
use and the food sector, beside the housing and mobility sectors, as key domains for 
effective restructuring and climate change mitigation. Relevant for the land use sector, 
the  Resource  Efficiency  Roadmap  requests  e.g.  the  restoration  of  ecosystems  and  of 
biodiversity, an increase of  soil carbon contents, and prevention of soil erosion. Also, 
the  Resource  Efficiency  Roadmap  refers  indirectly  to  the  land  use  sector  by 
encouraging  the  substitution  of  carbon  intensive  materials  e.g.  in  chemistry  and 
construction by bio-products. 

However,  there  is  a  challenge  in  regard  of  the  overall  outcome  regarding  net  GHG 
emissions and efficient use of resources if individual policies and strategies impacting 
on  land  use,  biomass  production,  trade  and  use  are  not  integrated.  Furthermore, 
impacts  on  other  ecosystem  services,  competing  sectors  and  triggered  feedback 
mechanisms  across  sectors  and  economic  actors  is  not  appropriately  quantified  and 
understood.  The  poor  understanding  of  these  issues  is  due  to  the  complex  nature  of 
global  land  use  and  due  to  the  fact  that  the  land  use  sector  is  closely  connected  to 
other sectors. Measures directly targeting this sector have implications on others and 
vice versa. 

The impacts of biomass use on GHG emissions and associated land use and land use 
change are among the  more researched  biomass impacts. They were  already  studied 
in  the  1990s  (e.g.,  Leemans  et  al.  1996;  Marland  and  Schlamadinger  1997)  when 
direct  land  use  change  effects  were  also  considered  in  life  cycle  assessments  (LCA) 
studies.  Most  studies  addressed  land  use  change  emissions  associated  with  biofuels 
(e.g.,  Gibbs  et  al.,  2008;  Searchinger  et  al.  2008).  However,  some  assessed  also 
implications (mostly GHG emissions) of increasing the use of solid biomass for biofuels 
(Forströmm et  al. 2012, Havlík et al 2011) and for heat  and power (Cherubini 2010; 
Latta et al. 2013; Gerssen-Gondelach et al. 2014) compared to alternative uses of the 
wood (Böttcher et al. 2012; Matthews et al. 2014a). These impacts include trade-offs 
and synergies. The key challenge in the assessment of direct and indirect effects is the 
delineation of system boundaries and the development and application of appropriate 
methods and metrics to assess impacts within those. 

Besides  GHG  emissions,  other  effects  need  to  be  considered  when  evaluating  the 
impacts of biomass use and its expansion such as the potential loss of biodiversity and 
habitats or effects of cropland intensification and nutrient losses (IINAS/EFI/JR 2014). 
Some studies have explored the impact of biofuel production on biodiversity (Britz and 
Hertel 2009, Eggers et al. 2009, Hellmann and Verburg 2010). These impacts include 
trade-offs and synergies. There are many examples where existing land management 
is  sub-optimal,  resulting  in  various  forms  of  desertification  or  degradation  including 
wind  and  water  erosion,  sedimentation  of  rivers,  rising  groundwater  levels, 
groundwater  contamination,  eutrophication  of  rivers  and  groundwater  or  loss  of 
biodiversity.  In  several  cases,  the  increased  efficiency  in  biomass  production  may 
result in an improvement in overall land management (Smith et al. 2013). 

The  objective  of  this  project  (“Study  on  the  Impacts  on  resource  efficiency  of  future 
EU  demand  for  bioenergy”)  is  to  investigate  and  assess  the  resource  efficiency  and 
implications  of  different  future  scenarios  of  increased  use  of  bioenergy  for  electricity 

1 COM/2011/0571/final 
2 COM/2011/0112/final 

September 2014  5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

and  heat  in  the  EU,  including  impacts  on  natural  resources  and  on  the  environment 
and also indirect impacts of increased use. For the purpose of this study, "biomass" is 
defined  as  all  kinds  of  cellulosic  material  from  existing  forestry  operations,  new 
plantations,  short  rotation  coppice,  dedicated  crops,  plus  organic  residues  or  waste 
used as a material or for energy.  

2.1.  Aim and methodology of Task 2 

The  aim  of  the  literature  review  is  to  provide  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  potential 
impacts of biomass production, and its possible increase, on natural resources and the 
global  environment.  The  review 
focuses  on  quality,  applied  methodological 
approaches, and coherence between studies. Also shortcomings and limits of existing 
studies are subject to the review. This literature review is not a stand-alone product. A 
central  aim  is  to  provide  a  scientific  balanced  base  for  further  work  under  Task  3 
(modelling) and Task 4 (analysis of impacts).  

The  literature  review  for  environmental  and  economic  impacts  (both  positive  and 
negative) covers the impacts on biodiversity, soil, water, GHG-emissions, land use and 
indirect effects and economic impacts. Each impact category is sub-divided in detailed 
impacts, e.g. soil erosion, soil carbon loss, soil compaction, soil nutrient loss and soil 
salinization  for  the  category  soil  (see  details  in  Appendix  1).  Relevant  references  are 
selected  from  a  list  of  potentially  suitable  references.  Each  selected  reference  is 
screened for the mentioned impact categories as well as the cause of impact and the 
suggested  response.  In  total  40  references  out  of  a  list  of  202  references  have  been 
covered. 

Beside the analysis on the above mentioned impacts this literature review also covers 
a  review  of  measures  and  instruments  promoting  the  cascading  use  of  biomass.  For 
this topic much less references are available compared to environmental and economic 
aspects.  In  total  nine  references  have  been  covered  in  the  review.  The  references 
have  been  screened  for  measures  and  instruments  related  to  the  cascading  use  of 
biomass. 

2.2.  Use of the assessment within the project 

The  main  outcome  of  the  literature  review  is  an  evaluation  of  the  (positive 
and negative) impacts most relevant to the scope of the study. Based on this, a 
set  of  impacts  to  be  incorporated  into  the  modelling  work  carried  out  under  Task  3 
have  been  proposed.  These  results  will  be  further  considered  when  developing  the 
methodological framework of the modelling work e.g. as constrains in scenarios (Task 
3.1). 

Furthermore  under  task  3.1,  the  outcome  of  the  literature  review  is  used  to  develop 
sustainability indicators that can be linked  with model output and thus be considered 
in  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  under  Task  4.  Here  quantitative  indicators  directly 
calculated in the model framework, qualitative indicators derived  from model outputs 
and from the literature review are used. 

2.3.  Overview of the structure of the report 

Each  environmental  and  economic  impact  as  well  as  cascading  use  of  biomass  is 
covered  in  a  single  section.  Following  a  short  introduction,  impacts  from  the  use  of 
biomass are reviewed for each topic separately to understand: 

  impacts of biomass production and its increase; 

September 2014  6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

  impacts of conversion, transport and use of biomass. 

The  review  also  includes  responses  to  the  impacts  suggested  in  the  reviewed 
references. 

Following this review, conclusions are drawn about which identified impacts should be 
covered  in  the  modelling  framework.  Furthermore  we  indicate  how  these  impacts 
could be implemented and which datasets might be suitable for this work. 

September 2014  7 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

3. Biodiversity 

Habitat  loss  as  a  result  of  land-use  change  is  the  major  threat  to  biodiversity,  with 
over  80%  of  globally  threatened  birds,  mammals,  and  amphibians  affected  wholly  or 
in part by habitat loss. Other prominent factors causing the decline of biodiversity are 
habitat  fragmentation  and  isolation,  land-use  intensification  and  overexploitation, 
species  invasions,  and  adverse  climate-change  impacts  (see  overview  in  Hennenberg 
et al. 2010). 

The use of biomass for energy purposes can be one driver causing loss of biodiversity 
linked primarily to direct and indirect land-use change and increasing intensity of land 
use.  The  increasing  use  of  biomass  is  likely  to  increase  this  pressure,  with  the 
exception  that  the  increase  of  biomass  extraction  is  embedded  in  biodiversity 
protection measures. In consequence, regulations and international agreements in the 
context  of  the  energetic  use  of  biomass  (e.g.  RED  2008,  GBEP  2011)  as  well  as 
voluntary  certification  systems  (e.g.  FSC,  PEFC,  RSB)  address  the  protection  of 
biodiversity. 

The screening of literature carried out in this project focussed on the following detailed 
impacts:  loss  of  species,  loss  of  ecosystems,  damage  of  flora  and  fauna  and  loss  of 
ecosystem functions. 

3.1.  Impacts from the use of biomass on biodiversity 
3.1.1.  Impacts of biomass production and its increase 

An  overview  of  impacts  addressed  by  studies  and  identified  in  the  in-depth  review  is 
summarised in Table 3-1. First of all, the loss  of areas with high biodiversity value is 
mentioned as an important impact that can follow  unsustainable biomass production. 
In  consequence,  the  protection  of  valuable  areas  is  of  high  importance,  including 
existing  protected  areas  as  well  as  valuable  areas  without  a  protection  status  (GBEP 
2011,  OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  Berndes  et  al.  2013,  Gove  et  al.  2010;  see  possible 
response  in  Table  3-1).  These  areas  shall  be  completely  excluded  from  biomass 
production or the land use shall be adopted in a manner that the protection goal can 
be achieved.  

Beside  protection  of  areas  with  a  high  biodiversity  value,  sustainable  cultivation 
practices  are  needed  that  increase  or  at  least  preserve  habitat  quality,  especially  for 
rare,  threatened  and  endangered  species.  A  central  negative  impact  on  biodiversity 
from forest management is due to a low amount of dead wood in intensively managed 
forest ecosystems as habitat features for  saproxylic organisms. Negative impacts can 
be further caused by the removal of logging residues (fine and course woody debris), 
whole  tree  harvest  and  the  extraction  of  large  dead  wood  (Müller  and  Bütler  2010, 
Abbas et al. 2011, Bouget et al. 2012, Fernholz et al. 2009, Tuomasjukka et al. 2014, 
Baral  and  Malins  2013,  Verkerk  et  al.  2011,  Hart  et  al.  2013).  Regarding  possible 
responses,  Müller  and  Bütler  (2010)  stress  the  importance  of  heterogeneity  of  dead 
wood  for  the  protection  of  biodiversity.  From  their  literature  review  they  derived 
threshold values to guarantee a sufficient amount of dead-wood and dying trees with 
respect  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity  including  all  dead  wood  fractions  (peak-dead 
wood-values at 20–30 m3 ha-1 for boreal coniferous forests; 30–40 m3 ha-1 for mixed 
montane forests; 30–50 m3 ha-1 for lowland oak–beech forests; see Müller and Bütler 
2010).  Furthermore  the  extraction  of  rare  dead  wood  fractions  like  large  dead  wood 
should  be  avoided  (Fernholz  et  al.  2009),  residue  harvesting  in  stands  with  high 
ecological values should be  excluded and  large scale extrapolation  should be avoided 
(Bouget  et  al.  2012;  see  also  Tuomasjukka  et  al.  2014).  Such  aspects  should  be 

September 2014  8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

included in site and resource specific management guidelines (Abbas et al. 2011, Hart 
et al. 2013, Baral and Malins 2013) or active measures against high biomass removal 
should  be  undertaken  (Verkerk  et  al.  2011).  Nevertheless,  the  production  of  forest 
biomass  may  affect  the  forest  biodiversity  positively  (e.g.  management  of  neglected 
forests; wood extraction to achieve nature protection goals). 

The  extraction  of  stumps  can  negatively  impact  biodiversity  due  to  the  loss  of 
microhabitats  found  in  stumps  (Bouget  et  al.  2012,  Moffat  et  al.  2011).  In 
consequence, Bouget et al. (2012) advise as response to avoid large scale exportation 
of stumps as well a prohibition of stump extraction in areas with high ecological value. 
The  identification  of  sensible  areas  should  occur  by  a  risk  assessment  on  a  site  level 
(Moffat et al. 2011). 

Old and dying trees show rare habitat features in managed forest (Bouget et al. 2012, 
Hart  et  al.  2013).  Harvest  of  these  trees  should  also  be  avoided,  especially  those  of 
broad-leaved tree species (Bouget et al. 2012, see also Tuomasjukka et al. 2014). 

Another  aspect  that  was  less  prominent  in  the  reviewed  literature  is  the  negative 
impact  on  biodiversity  that  can  occur  from  invasive  species,  including  tree  species, 
cultivated  for  bioenergy  use.  These  species  should  be  avoided  because  they  can 
spread out and can cause uncontrollable impacts outside of the production area (GBEP 
2011). 

The detailed impact “loss of ecosystem functions” was not explicitly mentioned in the 
reviewed  references.  However,  it  is  well  known  that  impacts  like  loss  of  species  and 
ecosystems  can  directly  result  in  a  loss  of  ecosystem  functions  (e.g.  Groom  et  al. 
2006).  

With regard to impacts of short rotation coppice (SRC) on biodiversity, the effects can 
be positive as well as negative. A differentiation among animal groups,  previous land 
use, spatial structures and ecological conditions of SRCs is needed. For example, short 
rotation  coppice,  short-rotation  forestry  and  Miscanthus  appear  to  support  a  higher 
abundance  and  diversity  of  bird  species  than  arable  or  improved  grassland  (Gove  et 
al. 2010). 

In addition, the respective landscape concerns need to be considered (Dimitriou et al. 
2011).  However,  the  cultivation  of  SRC  on  former  intensively  managed  cropland  is 
likely  to  show  positive  impacts  on  biodiversity  while  impacts  tend  to  be  negative  on 
high biodiversity agricultural lands (Berndes et al. 2013). 

Table 3-1 
possible response found in literature 

Cause  of  impact  on  biodiversity  from  biomass  production  and 

Cause of impact 

Possible response 

Loss of ecosystems – Valuable area (including areas with high biodiversity value) 

Degradation of valuable areas, protected 
areas, fragmentation, missing buffer 
zones, use of invasive species 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Conversion of areas of high biodiversity 
value or critical ecosystems to areas of 
bioenergy production (GBEP 2011) 
Deforestation (Forestry Commission 
Scotland 2009) 

Scheme for mapping relevant areas, prior use of 
uncritical unused-land and making use of 
biodiversity friendly cropping methods (e.g. next to 
protected areas) (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Not specified 

Creation of forest habitat networks and new native 
woodlands (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) 

September 2014  9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Replacement of native woodland or other 
biodiversity-rich habitats by energy crops 
(Gove et al. 2010) 
High volumes of timber and biomass 
harvested in more intensive forest 
management systems (Hart et al. 2013) 
Loss of biodiversity due to SRC cultivation 
if land already has a high biodiversity 
level (Berndes et al. 2013) 
Short-rotation forestry and Miscanthus 
more likely to be colonized by species of 
disturbed or edge habitats, whereas 
woodland specialists are unlikely to 
establish without deliberate 
encouragement (Gove et al. 2010) 
Biomass crops such as SRC, short-
rotation forestry and Miscanthus appear 
to support a higher abundance and 
diversity of bird species than arable or 
improved grassland (Gove et al. 2010) 
Loss of species – Stumps 

Stump harvest as stumps show often 
microhabitats for rare species (Bouget et 
al. 2012);  
Loss of species that depend on dead wood 
and microhabitats in stumps (Moffat et al. 
2011) 
Loss of species – Dead wood / Residues 

Absence of a sufficient amount of dead 
wood / dying trees as dead and dying 
trees have been shown to be a key 
habitat feature for a broad range of 
saproxylic organisms (Müller and Bütler 
2010) 

The removal of coarse and fine woody 
debris has an influence on maintaining 
ecosystem wildlife and biodiversity habitat 
resources (Abbas et al. 2011) 
Loss of habitats for deadwood specialists 
by removal of logging residues (fine and 
course woody debris) and whole tree 
harvest (Bouget et al. 2012) 
Loss of large dead wood (Fernholz et al. 
2009) 
The lack of dead and decaying wood is 
threatening many forest species and 
renewable energy targets are increasing 
that threat (negative effects on beetles, 
shrubs, structural diversity of tree, 
mosses, liverworts; positive effects on 
diversity of trees and small mammals) 
(Tuomasjukka et al. 2014) 
Removal of forest residues (Baral and 
Malins 2013) 

Not specified 

Not specified 

No SRC on high biodiversity agricultural lands 
(Berndes et al. 2013) 

Re-introduction of traditional forestry management 
techniques, such as coppicing, and better use of 
our forestry resources (Gove et al. 2010) 

No specification 

No stump harvesting in stands with high ecological 
values, avoid large scale extrapolation (Bouget et 
al. 2012) 
Careful assessment of risk at a site (Moffat et al. 
2011) 

Guarantee an amount of dead-wood /dying trees 
above threshold value. (summary: peak-dead 
wood-values at 20–30 m3 ha-1 for boreal coniferous 
forests, 30–40 m3 ha-1 for mixed montane forests, 
and 30–50 m3 ha-1 for lowland oak–beech forests. 
Beside the amount of dead wood its heterogeneity 
is of importance (Müller and Bütler 2010) 
Site and resource specific management guidelines 
(Abbas et al. 2011) 

No residue harvesting in stands with high 
ecological values, avoid large scale extrapolation 
(Bouget et al. 2012) 

No harvest of large dead trees (Fernholz et al. 
2009) 
Concentrate conservation efforts on areas where 
biodiversity still rich; care to be taken with energy 
wood harvesting near nature reserves, retain old 
living and dead trees especially deciduous oak, 
lime and aspen (Tuomasjukka et al. 2014) 

Adoption of best harvesting practices. A certain 
portion of residues should be left behind to ensure 
the adequate species abundance and 
diversity(Baral and Malins 2013) 

September 2014  10 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Extracting forest biomass for energy 
production may result in loss of deadwood 
and hence biodiversity (Verkerk et al. 
2011) 
Harvesting and extraction of forest 
residues and dead wood (Hart et al. 
2013) 
Loss of species – Habitat trees 

Harvest of old / dead / dying trees that 
are habitats for deadwood specialists 
(Bouget et al. 2012); 
Selection and specialisation of forest tree 
species to fewer types (Hart et al. 2013) 
Biodiversity – Damage of flora and fauna 

Undertaking active measures taken against high 
biomass removal (Verkerk et al. 2011) 

Protection or management of forest with the 
purpose of constraining harvesting activities (Hart 
et al. 2013) 

No harvest of habitat trees, especially of broad 
leave trees (Bouget et al. 2012) 

Not specified 

Due to invasive species (GBEP 2011) 

Not specified 

Miscanthus crop plants provided less 
insect food than wheat crop plants 
(Bellamy et al. 2009) 
Modifications to stubble heights and straw 
management in-situ which could reduce 
cover for small farmland birds and 
increase their predation risk (IEEP et al. 
2010) 

Management for wildlife (Bellamy et al. 2009) 

Increased planting of cover crops as part of an 
optimised crop rotation that provide alternative 
winter fodder ground for birds (IEEP et al. 2010) 

3.1.2.  Impacts of conversion, transport and use of biomass 

The  selected  references did not address impacts on biodiversity from the conversion, 
transport  and  use  of  biomass.  This  can  be  interpreted  as  the  fact  that  such  impacts 
are  of  minor  importance  compared  to  impacts  occurring  from  biomass  production. 
Impacts on biodiversity from conversion, transport and use of biomass often occur as 
“co-impacts” to other aspects like pollution of waterbodies or soil degradation. 

3.2.  Proposals  to  address  biodiversity  impacts  in  the  modelling 

framework 

From  a  biodiversity  perspective  the  review  showed  that  two  aspects  are  of  high 
relevance and it is proposed to cover them in in the modelling framework: 

1.  The protection of areas with high biodiversity value  
2.  Sustainable extraction rates of dead wood, residues, stumps and old trees 

The  first  aspect  could  be  implemented  by  the  exclusion  of  already  known  valuable 
areas like protected areas (e.g.  World Database  on Protected Areas),  primary forests 
(e.g. Forest  Intact Landscape) and peatland areas (Harmonized World Soil Database, 
GLC  2000)  from  biomass  production.  Furthermore,  the  overlay  of  maps  on  the 
distribution of rare and threatened species from different species groups can be used 
to derive areas of high biodiversity value that are currently not protected (e.g. UNEP-
WCMC biodiversity atlas; compare Table 3-2). These areas may also be excluded from 
biomass  production.  Mapping  initiatives  for  rare  and  endangered  species  (e.g.  Key 
Biodiversity  Areas,  Important  Bird  Areas,  Important  Plant  Areas,  Alliance  for  Zero 
Extinction),  however,  appear  not  to  be  easily  usable  in  this  project  as  they  are  not 
globally available and they are not freely available. 

September 2014  11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Sustainable  extraction  rates  (point  2)  for  dead  wood,  residues,  stumps  and  old  trees 
should  to  be  specific  to  forest  types  and  regions.  A  differentiation  between  boreal, 
temperate,  sub-tropical  and  tropical  forests  appears  reasonable.  The  models  applied 
by IIASA differentiate between stem wood, branches and stumps. Harvesting rates of 
these fractions should be set to a level as to assure a sufficient amount of dead wood. 
Given  that  adverse  effects  are  clearly  site  and  management  specific  in  nature,  these 
can  be  minimized  through  site-specific  forest  guidelines  and  best  practices  in  forest 
management.  These  already  exist  in  a  number  of  EU  Member  States  (as  well  as  in 
third countries) and include for instance the type and amount of logging residues that 
should  be  left  in  the  forest  for  biodiversity  reasons  (guidelines  in  Sweden  suggest  a 
20% retention level, in Finland 30% and in the US state of Minnesota 20%). 

The  challenge  is  the  selection  of  suitable  thresholds  that  can  be  used  in  the  model 
work. Thresholds for the extraction of dead wood could follow the results from  Müller 
and Bütler (2010), e.g. leaving 30 m3 ha-1 stem wood as dead wood and old trees in 
boreal  coniferous  forests.  Less  concrete  responses  found  in  the  literature  like  the 
avoidance  of  large  scale  exportation  of  stumps  (Bouget  et  al.  2012)  need  to  be 
translated in reasonable thresholds, e.g. a maximum of 10% stump extraction. 

Negative  impacts  from  invasive  species  are  difficult  to  address  in  models  as  the 
impacts  will  not  occur  on  the  production  area.  However,  the  yields  implemented  in 
IIASA models are based on native species for each region. This means that the models 
assume no cultivation of invasive species that may show higher productivity compared 
to native once. 

Similarly,  the  cultivation  of  genetic  modified  organisms  (GMO)  may  cause  negative 
impacts on biodiversity outside of the cultivation area. GMO may show higher yields or 
may  require  less  inputs  compared  to  non-GMO  that,  e.g.,  may  result  in  lower  GHG-
emissions  in  an  LCA.  However,  this  assessment  is  out  of  the  scope  of  the  applied 
models. 

Table 3-2 
Area type 

List of dataset to address sustainability impacts on biodiversity* 

Dataset to be used 

SpecificationsStudy 

Biodiversity - loss of ecosystems 

Protected areas 

World database on protected 
area 
NATURA 2000 

Primary forest 

Intact forest landscape 

Peat land 

Area of high 
biodiversity value 
(including grassland 
and forests) 

Harmonized world soil database 
GLC 2000 
UNEP-UCMC biodiversity atlas 

Category I-IV: No biomass extraction 
Category V-VI: Forestry allowed; normal 
land use on existing arable land and 
grassland 
No use and no conversion allowed of 
intact forest landscapes 
Link to corruption index for countries 
not respecting the rule? 
Category Histosol: no use 

Selection depending on the number of 
endangered species from mammals, 
amphibians, birds, etc. on site; 
Restriction of site can be set like for 
protected areas, meaning no 
conversion, no use, use with yield 
restrictions. 

*These  proposals  are  based  on  results  from  OEKO/IFEU/CI  (2010).  The  suitability  of  datasets 
will be evaluated in more detail under Task 3 of this project. 

September 2014  12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

4. Soil 

The fertility of soil plays a key role in the potential and capacity of land for agricultural 
and  forestry  use,  and  soil  degradation  is  the  main  impact  that  threatens  these 
opportunities  (UNEP  2014).  Furthermore,  soil  performs  numerous  environmental 
functions  such  as  storing,  filtering  and  transformation  of  substances  (nutrients, 
contaminants and organic carbon) and serving as a habitat for species. 

The  use  of  biomass  may  affect  the  degradation  status  of  the  soil,  positively  (e.g. 
increase of soil carbon) or negatively (increase of soil erosion). The protection of soil is 
already  embedded  in legislation  (e.g.  cross  compliance  regulation  within  the  EU)  and 
is  part  of  standards  like  Forest  Stewardship  Council  (FSC),  Programme  for  the 
Endorsement  of  Forest  Certification  (PEFC)  and  Roundtable  on  Sustainable  Biofuels 
(RSB) as well as the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) indicator. 

Soil  degradation  can  be  caused  by  inappropriate  land  management  –  that  can  be 
avoided by soil protection measures (e.g. WOCAT 2007)  –  or by natural disturbance. 
Main  factors  causing  soil  degradation  are  soil  erosion,  soil  carbon  loss,  compaction, 
nutrient  loss,  salinization  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010),  and  these  are  covered  as  detailed 
impact categories in this report. 

4.1.  Impacts from the use of biomass on soil 
4.1.1.  Impacts of biomass production and its increase 

Most negative impacts on soil from biomass use mentioned in the reviewed references 
are  a  result  of  unsuitable  land  management  during  production  or  harvesting  of 
biomass (see Table 4-1). 

Soil erosion mainly occurs at unsuitable sites (e.g. steep slopes; OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010, 
Moffat et al. 2011) or after strong disturbance such as exposing bare soil to water and 
wind after deforestation (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009, Turbe et al. 2010), less 
surface cover after residue extraction (Alexopoulou et al. 2010, IEEP et al. 2010) and 
especially  after  deep  tilling  and  stump  harvest  (Fernholz  et  al.  2009,  Turbe  et  al. 
2010).  

Soil  carbon  and  soil  nutrient  loss  are  often  directly  associated  with  the  loss  of  upper 
soil  layers  by  soil  erosion.  Furthermore,  the  loss  and  gain  of  soil  carbon  strongly 
depends  on  cultivation  measures.  Intensive  soil  treatments  in  general  increase  the 
mineralisation  of  soil  carbon  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  Alexopoulos  et  al.  2010),  and  soil 
disturbance  from  stump  extraction  can  have  strong  effects  (Moffat  et  al.  2011).  The 
extraction  of  forest  or  agricultural  residues  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  Alexopoulos  et  al. 
2010,  Hart  et  al.  2013,  GBEP  2011)  reduces  the  rebuilding  of  soil  carbon.  However, 
the cultivation of short rotation coppice can increase C sequestration in the soil when 
grown on agricultural soils previously grown with annual crops (Dimitriou et al. 2011). 
This should also be the case for other perennial species. 

Soil  nutrient  loss  is  mainly  associated  with  the  extraction  rate  of  biomass  and  can 
reduce  soil  fertility  mainly  in  case  of  pure  soils  (Bouget  et  al.  2012,  Fernholz  et  al. 
2009, Hart et al. 2013, Tuomasjukka et al. 2014, Aherne et al. 2011, Baral and Malins 
2013). In forests the removal of wood parts containing high contents of nutrients, e.g. 
logging  residues  (fine  and  coarse  woody  debris)  and  whole  tree  harvest  are  of  high 
importance  (Bouget  et  al.  2012).  Tuomasjukka  et  al.  (2014)  state  that  minor 
increases in harvesting of residues may causes major increase in nutrient loss from a 
site. Nutrient loss with stumps is of lower  relevance, but the removal of nutrient-rich 

September 2014  13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

soil  attached  to  the  tree  root  plates  can  show  strong  impacts  (Moffat  et  al.  2011). 
Furthermore  nutrient  load  in  run-off  water  can  increase  after  root  and  stump 
extraction (Moffat et al. 2011). 

Soil  compaction  is  mainly  caused  by  inappropriate  use  of  machinery  on  vulnerable 
soils  or  under  wet  conditions  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  Hart  et  al.  2013,  Turbe  et  al. 
2010).  Soil  compaction  can  occur  in  a  similar  manner  on  forest  or  agricultural  land. 
Salinization is mainly a result of inappropriate irrigation, often occurring in arid regions 
on  arable  land  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  Turbe  et  al.  2010).  Most  forest  land  is  not 
irrigated  and  salinization  is  unlikely.  Further  impacts  are  the  disturbance  of  soil 
structure  by  stump  extraction  (Moffat  et  al.  2011)  and  the  reduction  of  soil 
functionality  (including  upper  mentioned  aspects)  by  the  extraction  of  residues  like 
straw on agricultural sites (IEEP et al. 2010). 

The  responses  suggested  in  the  reviewed  references  on  impacts  on  soil  erosion, 
nutrient loss and carbon loss are rather similar (see Table 4-1). Agricultural cultivation 
and  harvest  of  tree  and  forest  residues  should  be  adapted  to  site  conditions 
(categorising  risk  classes)  and  suitable  soil  protection  measures  should  be  applied 
according  to  a  sound  risk  assessment.  Appropriate  soil  protection  measures  will  vary 
depending on the local and given soils character, but include, e.g., reduced tillage, cap 
on  biomass  and  residue  extraction  rate,  surface  cover,  green  cover  over  the  winter 
period,  mulching,  interception  of  rainfall  and  rooting  systems.  In  many  cases  a  soil 
protection measure addresses several impacts, e.g. mulching reduces the erosion risk, 
improves the soil carbon content and favours the nutrient cycle.  

With  regards  to  stumps  and  forest  residues  Fernholz  et  al.  (2009)  propose  to  forbid 
residue  harvest  on  rocky,  dry,  poor  soils  and  open  swamps  and  stump  harvest  in 
addition on steep slopes and from riparian areas. On other harvest sites stumps with a 
diameter  larger  15cm  should  not  be  extracted  and  no  more  than  30%  of  residues 
should be harvested (Fernholz et al. 2009). 

Looking at soil nutrient loss, site-adapted extraction rates and avoiding of large-scale 
harvests  are  proposed  (Bouget  et  al.  (2012),  and  needles  and  leaves  should  stay  on 
site (Aherne  et al. 2011). However, intensive  harvesting does not necessarily lead to 
reduced soil nutrient stocks as effects are site specific (Tuomasjukka et al. 2014). The 
application  of  wood  ash  may  also  compensate  for  the  nutrient  losses  (Hart  et  al. 
2013). 

Table 4-1 
response found in literature 

Cause  of  impact  on  soil  from  biomass  production  and  possible 

Cause of impact 

Soil erosion 

Insufficient land management (step slops, 
no soil protection measures applied) 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Increase of soil erosion on slopes due to 
soil disturbance (Moffat et al. 2011) 
Soil disturbance due to stump harvest 
(Fernholz et al. 2009) 

Unsuitable cropping management 
activities and crop characteristics, 
including residue extraction (Alexopoulou 
et al. 2010, IEEP et al. 2010) 

Possible response 

Soil protection measures, e.g. soil cover, perennial 
crops, row cultures, wind breaks and quota of 
residue use (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Careful assessment of risk at a site, categorizing 
soil types in risk classes (Moffat et al. 2011) 
Stumps should not be harvested on steep slopes, 
from riparian areas and on rocky, dry, poor soils 
and open swamps. No extraction of stumps with a 
diameter larger than 15cm (Fernholz et al. 2009) 
Soil protection measures (interception of rainfall, 
surface cover, rooting system, particularly green 
cover over the winter period, leave residues on the 
soil) (Alexopoulou et al. 2010) 

September 2014  14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Deforestation (Forestry Commission 
Scotland 2009) 
Deforestation, exposing bare soil to water 
and wind, the use of deep tillage (Turbe 
et al. 2010) 
Soil carbon loss 

Insufficient land management (high 
biomass extraction rate, intensive soil 
treatments) (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010, 
Alexopoulos et al. 2010) 
Increase of carbon loss due to increased 
mineralisation of carbon after soil 
disturbance due to stump extraction 
(Moffat et al. 2011) 
Negative or positive soil C balance of 
bioenergy feedstock (Don et al. 2012) 
Loss of soil carbon due to intense biomass 
extraction and/or cultivation or missing of 
soil protection measures (GBEP 2011) 
Depletion of soil organic carbon because 
of extraction of forest residues on sites 
with shallow soils (Hart et al. 2013) 
An increased C sequestration can be 
expected when SRC is grown on 
agricultural soils previously grown with 
conventional crops. However, the initial 
soil properties are responsible for the 
extent of C storage (Dimitriou et al. 2011) 
Soil nutrient loss 

Removal of wood parts containing high 
contents of nutrients, e.g. logging 
residues (fine and coarse woody debris) 
and whole tree harvest (Bouget et al. 
2012) 
Removal of nutrient-rich soil attached to 
the tree root plates; nutrient loss with 
stumps occurs, but is much lower 
compared to branches and steam wood; 
nutrient load in run-off water after 
root/stump extraction (Moffat et al. 2011) 
Extraction of nutrients by residue harvest 
(Fernholz et al. 2009) 

Depletion of nutrients because of 
extraction of forest residues on sites with 
shallow soils (Hart et al. 2013) 
Intensive harvesting will lead to decrease 
in soil nutrient status if not compensated 
for by management measures (Aherne et 
al. 2011) 
Removal of forest biomass decreases site 
nutrient stocks affecting e.g. the nitrogen 
cycling. Minor increase in harvesting 
residues may causes major increase in 
nutrient loss from a site (Tuomasjukka et 
al. 2014) 
Loss of soil nutrients (removal of 
biomass) (Baral and Malins 2013) 

Creation of forest habitat networks and new native 
woodlands (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) 
No specification 

Soil protection measures, e.g. reduced tillage, cap 
on biomass and residue extraction rate, surface 
cover, mulching, interception of rainfall, rooting 
system (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Careful assessment of risk at a site, e.g. 
categorizing soil types in risk classes (Moffat et al. 
2011) 

Plant and soil specifics should be compared to 
previous use of land (Don et al. 2012) 
Application of soil conservation measures, 
depending on soil degradation risk (GBEP 2011) 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Site-adopted extraction rate, avoid large-scale 
harvest (categorizing soil types in risk classes) 
(Bouget et al. 2012) 

Careful assessment of risk at a site (Moffat et al. 
2011) 

No residue harvest on rocky, dry, poor soils and 
open swamps, and 30% of residues must be left on 
other harvest sites (Fernholz et al. 2009) 
Application of wood ash to compensate for the 
nutrient losses (Hart et al. 2013) 

Needles and leaves should stay on site, fertilisation 
of N and K and others as appropriate to ensure 
sustained forest growth (Aherne et al. 2011) 

Intensive harvesting does not necessarily lead to 
reduced soil nutrient stocks. Effects are site specific 
(Tuomasjukka et al. 2014) 

Nitrogen fixation, atmospheric deposition or 
additional use of chemical fertilizers, organic 
manure, or ash (Baral and Malins 2013) 

September 2014  15 

 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Soil compaction 

Inappropriate use of machinery 
depending on soil type and soil humidity 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 

Use of heavy machinery for extracting 
biomass or trampling (particularly in wet 
soil, e.g. caused by poor drainage) (Hart 
et al. 2013, Turbe et al. 2010) 
Soil salinisation 

Inappropriate irrigation (OEKO/IFEU/CI 
2010, Turbe et al. 2010) 

soil protection measures, e.g. crop choice (yield 
mass, rooting system), adapted machinery 
(weight, tires), considering weather conditions 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Not specified 

Irrigation measures, e.g. no irrigation on sensitive 
soils, use of water with low salt content for 
irrigation, use effective drainage systems 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010, Turbe et al. 2010) 

Other soil impacts 

Disturbance of soil structure by stump 
extraction (Moffat et al. 2011) 
Negative impacts from wood removal 
(Abbas et al. 2011) 
Reduction of soil functionality due to the 
extraction of straw from agricultural areas 
(IEEP et al. 2010) 

Careful assessment of risk at a site (Moffat et al. 
2011) 
Retaining or leaving tree foliage and leaving up to 
30% of residues in the field (Abbas et al. 2011) 
Ploughing-in of cut straw following the cereal 
harvest to help maintain soil functionality (IEEP et 
al. 2010) 

4.1.2.  Conversion, transport and use of biomass 

Impacts from conversion, transport and use of biomass on soil were not mentioned in 
the  references  covered  in  the  literature  review.  However,  soil  contamination  by 
pollutants  from  these  processes  may  occur  locally  e.g.  in  case  of  non-routine 
operation. 

4.2.  Proposals to address soil impacts in the modelling framework 
The review showed that most soil impacts are very site specific and require respective 
soil conservation measures. The amount of biomass extraction can be part of the soil 
conservation  measure  (e.g.  mulching  with  straw,  retaining  nutrient  cycle  by  leaving 
branches  and  leaves  on  site).  Other  soil  conservation  methods  increase  the  possible 
extraction  rate  and  create  production  costs  (e.g.  fertilisation  with  ash).  Some  soil 
conservation measures may only cause costs that are not directly visible in yields (e.g. 
adaption  of  machinery,  windbreaks).  Finally,  specific  soil  conservation  measures  may 
lead to a lowering of the  future yield developments (e.g. adoption of crop rotation to 
allow straw extraction). 

From  a  modelling  perspective  the  challenge  is  firstly  to  identify  requirements  that 
might be covered by area related restrictions in the model work:  

1.  Identification  of  exclusion  areas  where  (i)  no  production  is  allowed  at  all  and 
(ii)  where  no  residue  or  stump  extraction  should  occur  (e.g.  depending  on 
steep slopes, poor soils (low soil organic content, low content of nutrients), wet 
soils) 

2.  Restriction of residue and stump extraction on all remaining areas 
3.  Lowering  the  development  of  yields  (agriculture  and  intense  forestry),  i.e. 
assuming  a  lower  annual  yield-increase  rate  assuming  stronger  soil  protection 
measures 

A short overview of possible data sets that may be used for the implementation of soil 
restrictions in the model work are listed in Table 4-2. 

September 2014  16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Secondly,  additional  conservation  measures  of  soils  and  their  impact  on  production 
costs could be added and reflected upon in the economic model. 

Table 4-2 
Area type 

List of dataset to address sustainability impacts on soil 

Dataset to be used 

SpecificationsStudy 

Biodiversity - loss of ecosystems 

Steep slopes  

Soil restrictions 

Global evaluation data sets for 
slope classes “Global 30 Arc 
Second Elevation Data” as used 
by G4M for estimating forest 
growth. 
European soil database as 
harmonized for EU. 
Harmonized world soil database 
based on “Soil map of the 
world”. 

No biomass extraction on slopes > 30%. 
No residue and stump extraction on 
slopes > 15%. 

Maximum 30% extraction of residues 
and stump on all sites. 
For EU, no extraction of residues and 
stump on land with stones > 25% and 
Very fine texture. 
Globally, no extraction of residues and 
stump on land classified as stony.  

September 2014  17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

5. Water and water pollution 

The unsustainable management of freshwater resources is a key global environmental 
challenge  to  achieve  human  wellbeing  (UN  2012,  WWAP  2014)  as  well  as  the 
protection  of  ecosystems  that  depend  on  sufficient  and  clean  water  (CBD  2009). 
Freshwater  is  already  scarce  in  some  regions  of  the  world,  and  existing  freshwater 
resources are under heavy threat from overexploitation due to growing population and 
changing diets, pollution, energy demand and climate change. The agricultural sector 
in particular is responsible for about 70% of freshwater withdrawal worldwide (WWAP 
2014). 

The  use  of  biomass  for  bioenergy  can  impact  on  freshwater  resources  mainly  by  an 
over-use of water resources, lowering of water table, and the pollution of water bodies 
(e.g. OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010). 

5.1.  Impacts  from  the  use  of  biomass  on  water  and  water 

pollution 

5.1.1.  Impacts of biomass production and its increase 

For  biomass  pathways  under  the  focus  of  this  study  (solid  biomass,  short  rotation 
coppice, lignocellulosic biomass, agricultural residues, etc.) impacts on freshwater are 
assessed  to  be  much  lower  compared  to  impacts  from  arable  crops  for  biofuels. 
Nevertheless, authors of the studies in this literature review highlight several impacts 
on water resources from the use of biomass that might be of interest within the model 
work. 

The overuse of water resources and impacts on water tables (see Table 5-1) can occur 
from  a  high  use  of  water  for  biomass  cultivation  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  GBEP  2011), 
namely by irrigation in areas with water stress or by cultivating energy crops with high 
water  demands  (Alexopoulos  et  al.  2010).  For  example  the  evapotranspiration  from 
short rotation coppice with willow and poplar is in most cases significantly higher than 
arable  crops,  but  lower  than  conventional  forests  (Dimitriou  et  al.  2011,  Don  et  al. 
2012). In water scarce regions or regions with existing high water use a switchover to 
short  rotation  coppice  may  strengthen  the  water  scarcity.  To  avoid  such  negative 
impacts of the cultivation of bioenergy crops on the local hydrological balance, authors 
of  the  reviewed  reference  suggest  to  consider  plant  species  specifics  when  choosing 
species  in  arid  and  water  scarce  regions  (Dimitriou  et  al.  2011)  as  well  as  mitigation 
options  for  irrigation  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010).  However,  most  bioenergy  crops  and 
especially forests grow under rainfed conditions and irrigation is of low relevance. 

The main source of water pollution from agriculture and forestry is the use of fertiliser 
and pesticides (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010, UNEP 2011, Alexopoulos et al. 2010, GBEP 2011, 
Baral  and  Malins  2013,  Langeveld  et  al.  2012).  Furthermore,  high  nutrient  loads  in 
run-off  water  can  occur  after  stump  extraction  (Moffat  et  al.  2011),  forest  site 
preparation (Baral and Malins 2013) and intensive logging and residue extraction (Hart 
et  al.  2013,  Baral  and  Malins  2013).  Possible  responses  include  the  reduced 
application  of  chemicals  and  adequate  use  of  waste  water  from  municipals  and 
industries  for  irrigation  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010)  and  innovative  forms  of  integrated 
production  (UNEP  2011)  as  well  as  careful  assessment  of  risks  at  a  site  in  case  of 
stump extraction (Moffat et al. 2011). 

Short rotation coppice is generally considered to improve the water quality relative to 
conventional agricultural crops due to the less intense management practices of SRC. 

September 2014  18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

It is suggested to use short rotation coppice in intensively managed agricultural areas 
to improve the current water quality (Dimitriou et al. 2011). 

An  increased  logging  of  forests  can  impact  hydrological  processes  in  a  region  (e.g. 
increased  water  run-off,  retention  and  reduced  water  infiltration;  Abbas  et  al.  2011, 
Tuomasjukka  et  al.  2014),  and  changes  in  lake  water  chemistry  due  to  changes  in 
water  run-off  chemistry  can  occur  (Aherne  et  al.  2011).  Tuomasjukka  et  al.  (2014) 
reports a measurable and substantial negative response of intensive residue extraction 
in acid sensitive catchments in  the boreal zone in medium term. Also high extraction 
rate  of  residues  (e.g.  straw  removal)  can  decrease  water  filtration  and  increase 
evaporation (IEEP 2010). These impacts, however, may be addressed by management 
treatments considering local water cycle situations (Abbas et al. 2011) and by leaving 
a  sufficient  amount  of  leaves  and  residues  in  the  forest  (Aherne  et  al.  2011,  IEEP 
2010). 

Table 5-1 
response found in literature 

Cause of impact on water from biomass production and possible 

Cause of impact 

Possible response 

Mitigation options in case of overuse of water 
(e.g. upgrading of soil moisture capacity, 
improvement of irrigation and water use 
efficiency, reducing water demand at other 
locations, water storage)(OEKO/IFEU/CI 
2010) 
No specification 

No specification 

No specification 

No specification 

Plant species specifics should be considered 
when choosing species, especially in arid 
regions (Dimitriou et al. 2011) 

No specification 

Overuse of water resources and impact on water tables 

Irrigation in areas with water stress 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 

High use of water for bioenergy production 
(cultivation) (GBEP 2011) 
High water demand of selected energy crops 
(Alexopoulos et al. 2010) 
Surface runoff and impact on 
groundwater recharge (Langeveld et al. 2012) 
Reduce downstream water availability (Berndes et 
al. 2013) 
Evapotranspiration from SRC fields with willow 
and poplar is in most cases significantly higher 
than arable crops but lower than conventional 
forest (site-specific variation possible) (Dimitriou 
et al. 2011) 
Increased use of water in comparison to 
agricultural crops (e.g. a 5% and 10% higher 
water consumption for Miscanthus and willow 
compared with wheat and permanent grassland). 
SRC have deeper roots than agricultural crops 
that enables them to use and deplete deeper 
groundwater resources, although this could be a 
disadvantage by affecting the local hydrological 
balance (Don et al. 2012) 
Water pollution – land use 

Washout/contamination from agrochemicals in 
case of high loads of nutrients and pesticides) 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Agricultural and forestry activities: The main 
sources of pollution are related to the use of 
pesticides and fertilizers (UNEP 2011) 

Mitigation options, e.g. reduced application 
of chemicals and adequate use of waste 
water for irrigation (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Innovative forms of integrated production 
will prove the best way to avoid and mitigate 
impacts (UNEP 2011) 

September 2014  19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

High loadings of nutrients (N, P, K) and pesticides 
in water bodies (Alexopoulos et al. 2010, GBEP 
2011, Baral and Malins 2013, Langeveld et al. 
2012) 
Nutrient load in run-off water after stump 
extraction can affect water bodies (Moffat et al. 
2011) 
Forest management activities (site preparation, 
harvesting) (Baral and Malins 2013) 
Detrimental harvesting patterns (intensive 
logging, residue extraction) (Hart et al. 2013) 
SRC is generally considered to improve the water 
quality relative to conventional agricultural crops 
in a given area due to the management practices 
of SRC (weed control only during the 
establishment phase, tillage only before the 
establishment phase, and lower inorganic 
fertilization than other crops) (Dimitriou et al. 
2011) 
Water – other aspects 

Hydrological process are impacted by tree 
removal: Reduced interception and reduced 
moisture storage results in more runoff in small 
streams and increased water yield; litter storage 
of water is impacted by changes in the amount of 
litter on-site; temporarily eliminating 
transpiration increases baseflow and soil 
moisture; reduced infiltration increases overland 
flow and storm flow, whereas increased 
infiltration decreases overland flow and increases 
base flow (Abbas et al. 2011) 

Increased demand for biomass for energy is 
increasing pressure on forests. Changes in 
harvesting levels has an influence on soil and lake 
water chemistry (Aherne et al. 2011) 
Decreasing water filtration and increasing 
evaporation due to high extraction rate of 
residues, e.g. straw removal (IEEP 2010) 
Forest harvest influences interception, retention, 
cycling of water (delivery rates to surface waters 
and dynamics of aquatic systems) (Tuomasjukka 
et al. 2014) 
A measurable and substantial negative response 
of intensive residue extraction has been recorded 
in acid sensitive catchments in boreal zone in 
medium term (Tuomasjukka et al. 2014) 

Not specified 

Careful assessment of risk at a site (Moffat 
et al. 2011) 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Several authors suggest the use of SRC in 
intensively managed agricultural areas to 
improve the current water quality and meet 
EU obligations in terms of water quality 
expressed in the Water Framework 
(Dimitriou et al. 2011) 

A number of forest management guidelines 
have been developed to address these 
points. However, a number of them are very 
site specific and would be difficult to 
implement in a model. Furthermore, most 
hydrology guidelines recommend riparian 
areas, ditches, filter strips and water body 
protection. One though is that North 
American guidelines specify the avoidance of 
stump harvesting for utilization, except in 
woodland conversion sites (Abbas et al. 
2011) 
Measures like: Needles and leaves to stay on 
site; fertilisation of N&K; ensure sustained 
forest growth (Aherne et al. 2011) 

Leaving cut residues on the surface of the 
soil (IEEP 2010) 

Not specified 

Not specified 

5.1.2.  Conversion, transport and use of biomass 

Main  impacts  conversion,  transport  and  use  of  biomass  on  water  mentioned  in  the 
reviewed references refer to the pollution of waterbodies from processed waste water 
and  non-routine  operation  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  GBEP  2011,  UNEP  2011). 
Technological improvements  on  waste  water  treatment  and  the  selection  of  uncritical 
location  of  plants  are  proposed  to  response  to  these  impacts  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010, 
UNEP 2011). Furthermore, a high use of water for bioenergy production may cause an 
overuse of water resources (GBEP 2011). 

September 2014  20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Table 5-2 
biomass and possible response found in literature 

Cause of impact on  water from conversion, transport and use of 

Cause of impact 

Overuse of water resources 

High use of water for bioenergy production 
(conversion) (GBEP 2011) 
Water pollution – conversion 

Insufficient cleaning of process water / non-routine 
operation (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 

High loads of pollutants (manly organic substances) 
in waste water of bioenergy conversion plants (GBEP 
2011) 
Agricultural and forestry activities: co-products (e.g. 
vinasse) from the industrial pathways of some 
feedstocks (UNEP 2011) 

Possible response 

No specification 

Mitigation options, e.g. improved waste 
water treatment and uncritical location of 
plants (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Not specified 

Future technologies, probably associated 
with bio-refineries, could incorporate 
better water quality management (UNEP 
2011) 

5.2.  Proposals  to  address  water 

impacts 

in  the  modelling 

framework 

As mentioned above the identified impacts on water are of lower relevance under the 
scope  of  the  project  compared  to  e.g.  impacts  on  biodiversity  and  soil,  thus  the 
implementation of impacts on water should be followed with lower priority. 

Nevertheless,  the  most  relevant  impacts  on  water  that  might  be  considered  in  the 
model work are: 

1.  Avoid overuse of freshwater resources in water scarce regions 
2.  Avoid pollution of waterbodies from the application of fertilizer and pesticides 
3.  Avoid pollution of waterbodies from process waste water 

The overuse of freshwater resources may be addressed by restrictions on irrigation for 
bioenergy crops in water scarce regions (see Table 5-3) as well as a cap on areas that 
could  be  used  for  short  rotation  coppice  or  other  bioenergy  crops  characterised  by 
high  transpiration  rates.  Even  regrowth  of  forests  might  be  critical  in  such  water 
scarce  regions  due  to  the  even  higher  transpiration  rate  compared  to  short  rotation 
coppice.  

Table 5-3 
Area type 

List of dataset to address sustainability impacts on water 

Dataset to be used 

SpecificationsStudy 

Biodiversity - loss of ecosystems 

Water scarcity  

GLOBIOM endogenously 
estimated areas with high level 
of water scarcity. 

In water scarce regions: 

-  No irrigation (mainly agriculture) 
-  Cap on the area used for short 

rotation copies 

The pollution of water bodies caused by fertilizer and pesticides could be mitigated by 
the  reduction  of  their  application.  This  could  partly  be  achieved  by  optimising  e.g. 
fertiliser application, but also a reduction of yields is likely in case of the reduction of 
inputs.  The  latter  could  be  implemented  in  the  model  work  by  lowering  the  assumed 
yield development. Furthermore the reduction of nutrient loads in run-off water could 

September 2014  21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

be  addressed  by  mitigation  options  such  as  the  restriction  of  residue  and  stump 
extraction rates already named for the protection of soil (see Section 4.2). 

A  reduction  of  the  risk  of  water  pollution  from  waste  water  would  require  higher 
investments in bioenergy conversion plants. However, in the modelling framework the 
demand  of  bioenergy  is  exogenously  defined  and  the  issue  should  as  such  be  dealt 
with by POLES/PRIMES energy system models. 

September 2014  22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

6. Greenhouse gas emissions 

The  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions  (GHG)  compared  to  fossil  fuels  is  one 
important  aim  for  the  use  of  bioenergy  (along  with  energy  security  and  rural 
competitiveness  and  job  creation),  and  GHG  reductions  from  bioenergy  compared  to 
fossil  fuels  can  be  either  positive  or  negative.  Greenhouse  gas  emissions  along 
bioenergy  pathways  are  strongly  dependent  on  each  step  along  the  production  chain 
from  land  use  to  conversion,  transport  and  use  of  biomass.  Emissions  from  land  use 
can be  especially high in case of land use change (e.g.  ploughing up grassland), and 
emissions  from  conversion,  transport  and  use  are  influenced  by  parameters  such  as 
efficiency, transport distance and the avoidance of  emission sources for methane and 
nitrous oxide in the process steps. Furthermore, the payback times when using forest 
products for bioenergy range from 0 to almost 500 years, depending on the reference 
(i.e. what is substituted e.g. coal), time horizon, site and species, etc. (Agostini et al. 
2013).  The  review  carried  out  focuses  on  three  aspects:  GHG  emissions  (incl. 
substitution  effects  compared  to  fossil  fuels),  change  of  carbon  stock,  and  change  of 
disturbance pattern. 

6.1.  Direct  impacts  from  the  use  of  biomass  on  greenhouse  gas 

emissions 

6.1.1.  Impacts of biomass production and its increase 

Significant  negative  impacts  on  greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  biomass  production 
occur when areas  of high carbon stock are converted  to bioenergy plantations of low 
carbon  stock  (Hart  et  al.  2013,  OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  Forestry  Commission  Scotland 
2009),  but  also  an  increase  of  wood  extraction,  including  whole  tree  harvest  and 
residue extraction, can  lower the  carbon stock  of forests (Zanchi et al. 2012, Hart et 
al.  2013,  Tuomasjukka  et  al.  2014,  see  Table  6-1).  However,  there  are  cases  where 
long-term  active  forest  management  can  increase  biomass  and  timber  production 
while still safeguarding the forest  carbon stock at the landscape level  (Berndes  et al. 
2013). Examples of such improvements range from the promotion of regeneration and 
silvicultural management to enhancing forest growth (through improved timing of pre-
commercial cutting, thinning efforts, fertilization, etc.). Managing forests for products 
(energy and/or materials) can also determine higher GHG savings than suspending the 
management (Matthews et al 2014b), and an increase in woodfuel production may be 
occur after natural disturbances such as storms (Agostini et al. 2013). 

Generation of bioenergy using stumps and roots may release more greenhouse gases 
into the atmosphere than are saved by their substitution for fossil fuels (Moffat et al. 
2011). Also Vanhala et al. (2013) states that stump harvesting may decrease the soil 
carbon  stock.  However,  empirical  research  on  the  magnitude  of  emissions  from  the 
use of stumps and roots in comparison to fossil fuels (positive or negative) is limited 
(Vanhala et al. 2013).  

Furthermore, there is a debate concerning the timing of net GHG savings that occurs 
when  biomass  is  used  to  replace  fossil  fuels.  The  core  of  this  issue  is  that  there  is  a 
time  delay  between  emissions  when  woody  biomass  is  burned  and  subsequent 
regrowth  of  the  terrestrial  C  stock  –  the  so-called  "ecosystem  carbon  payback  time". 
In  particular  when  forests  with  long  rotation  periods  are  being  used  for  energy 
purposes, there can be noted a strong temporal imbalance in the C dynamics between 
the  time  when  the  C  is  released  into  the  atmosphere  and  later  sequestrated  again 
back  into  the  forest  (Zanchi  et  al.  2012,  Berndes  et  al.  2013,  EEA  2013a).  However, 
under  some  forest  use  scenarios,  the  same  argument  applies  when  harvesting 

September 2014  23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

residues  and  stumps  for  energetic  use,  inducing  a  direct  emission  of  carbon  in 
comparison  to  the  slow  decomposition  in  the  field  (Vanhala  et  al.  2013).  The 
implication of this issue varies significantly when looking at a stand level or landscape 
level, and if a short or a long term time scale is considered (Berndes et al. 2013). 

For agricultural residues ADAS (2008) states that  straw incorporation is an inefficient 
method of sequestering carbon and that the removal of straw for burning would have 
an adverse effect on greenhouse gas emissions. 

The  possible  responses  found  in  the  reviewed  references  can  be  grouped  into  two 
main  aspects.  Firstly,  areas  of  high  carbon  stock  should  not  be  converted  to 
production  areas  with lower  carbon  stock  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  Forestry  Commission 
Scotland  2009).  Secondly,  a  GHG-accounting  method  along  the  full  production  chain 
for  forestry  products  should  also  cover  the  carbon  sequestration  rate  of  forests  and 
the  carbon  being  released  when  the  mass  of  fuel  is  burned  (Zanchi  et  al.  2012, 
Berndes et al. 2013), including changes in soil carbon (Vanhala et al. 2013). Threshold 
values  for  the  reduction  of  GHG  emissions  in  comparison  to  fossil  fuels  are  of 
importance for the implementation in regulations like the RED (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010). 

Table 6-1 
production and possible response found in literature 

Cause  of  impact  on  greenhouse-gas  emissions  from  biomass 

Cause of impact 

Possible response 

GHG-emissions (incl. substitution effects compared to fossil fuels) 

High GHG-emissions along bioenergy-pathway 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 

UK example: 
(a) in a 40 year timeframe, CO2 emissions are 
lower for suspended management forest than 
for forest managed for bioenergy only 
(b) managing the forest for products 
determines higher GHG savings than 
suspending the management 
(c) result depends on reference (what is 
substituted), time horizon, site and species, 
etc. (Matthews et al 2014b) 
Harvested material left in situ to decompose 
(including chipped wood) (ADAS 2008) 
Deforestation (Forestry Commission Scotland 
2009) 
Removal of straw for burning would have an 
adverse effect on greenhouse gas emissions; 
straw incorporation is, however, an inefficient 
method of sequestering carbon (ADAS (2008)) 
GHG – Change of carbon stock and carbon debth 

Loss of carbon due to conversion of land with 
high carbon stock (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Conversion of high carbon stocks forests to 
bioenergy plantations of low carbon stock 
(Hart et al. 2013) 
Increased harvesting intensity can reduce the 
level of carbon sequestered in particular forest 
stands (Hart et al. 2013) 

Threashold for GHG-reduction of bioenergy, 
based on GHG-methodology (live-cycle 
analysis) including CO2-fixation, substitution of 
fossils, emissions from farming (fertilizer, 
pesticides, fuel), emissions from direct and 
indirect land-use change (OEKO/IFEU/CI 
2010) 
Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Exclusion of areas of high carbon stock 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Not specified 

Not specified 

September 2014  24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Generation of bioenergy using stumps and 
roots may release more greenhouse gases into 
the atmosphere than are saved by their 
substitution for fossil fuels (Moffat et al. 2011) 
Stump harvesting may decrease the soil 
carbon stock. However, empirical research on 
the magnitude of these emissions are rare 
(Vanhala et al. 2012) 
Harvesting of residues and stumps and using 
them directly for energy induces a direct 
emission of carbon in comparison to the slow 
decomposition in the field (Vanhala et al. 
2012) 
Burning biomass for energy is not carbon 
neutral as:  
(a) there is a time delay between emissions 
and subsequent regrowth when woody 
biomass is burned;  
(b) current harvesting levels might result in 
lowering the forest C stock (Zanchi et al. 
2012) 
Whole tree harvesting reduces soil C compared 
to stem only. Effects seen more frequently on 
forest floor than in mineral soil (Tuomasjukka 
et al. 2014) 
Growth enhancing measures (e.g. fertilization) 
and site preparation may increase productivity 
but may also lead to faster decomposition of 
soil organic matter (Berndes et al. 2013) 
Intensification in forest management has 
shown that stand management can increase C 
stock and biomass and timber production 
(Berndes et al. 2013) 
GHG – Change of disturbance pattern 

An increase in woodfuel production may be 
attained with natural disturbances (Agostini et 
al. 2013) 

Careful assessment of risk at a site, e.g. 
categorizing some soil types in risk classes 
(Moffat et al. 2011) 

Consider emissions from soil when harvesting 
of stump takes place (Vanhala et al. 2012) 

Timing of carbon from decomposition of 
harvesting residues could possibly be 
considered in terms of a slow change in the 
soil carbon pool (Vanhala et al. 2012) 

An accounting approach could possibly be 
used to cover the carbon sequestration rate of 
forests and the carbon being released when 
the mass of fuel is burned (Zanchi et al. 2012) 

Considerable variation in the observed 
response to harvesting of logging residues in 
soil and tree C (Tuomasjukka et al. 2014) 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

6.1.2.  Conversion, transport and use of biomass 

Single  production  steps  along  a  bioenergy  production  chain  may  be  responsible  for 
high  greenhouse  gas  emissions  (OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010,  see  Table  6-2).  For  example, 
emissions  of  methane  and  nitrous  oxide  and  other  trace  gases  may  occur  during 
anaerobic digestion of bio-waste and use of biogas (EC JRC-IES 2011) as well as from 
manure management (FAO 2013). Water use in processing can also contribute to GHG 
emissions, for example in wastewater treatment in the palm oil industry (UNEP 2011).  

GHG calculation methods need to cover all possible emissions. The challenge is then to 
identify  critical  process  steps  and  to  optimize  them  towards  low  GHG  emissions.  The 
sum of emissions should be compared with threshold values for the reduction of GHG 
emissions (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010). 

September 2014  25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Table 6-2 
transport and use of biomass and possible response found in literature 

Cause  of  impact  on  greenhouse-gas  emissions  from  conversion, 

Cause of impact 

Possible response 

GHG-emissions (incl. substitution effects) 

High GHG-emissions along bioenergy-
pathway (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 

Emission of CH4, N2O, and other trace 
gases during anaerobic digestion of bio-
waste and use of biogas (EC JRC-IES 
2011) 
Monogastric animals (pigs and poultry): 
feed provision is the first contributor to 
emissions, followed by manure 
management (production of methane) 
(FAO 2013) 
Water use in processing also contributes 
to GHG emissions, for example in 
wastewater treatment in the palm oil 
industry (UNEP 2011). 

Threashold for GHG-reduction of bioeneregy, based 
on GHG-methodology (live-cycle analysis) including 
substitution of fossils, allocation of co-products, 
emissions from conversion, processing and 
transport (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Minimise generation and emission of these gases, 
e.g. using biofilters (EC JRC-IES 2011) 

Not specified 

Not specified 

6.2.  Proposals to address impacts on greenhouse gas emissions in 

the modelling framework 

From  a  greenhouse-gas  emission  perspective  it  is  of  high  importance  to  address  the 
following aspects: 

  No conversion of areas of high carbon stock 

  No overuse of forests, i.e. extraction rate is not above regrowth 

  Time delay between emissions and subsequent regrowth, both for energy and 

materials 

  Threshold for the supply chain GHG-emission reduction compared to fossil sources 

The  conversion  of  areas  with  high  carbon  stock  needs  to  be  addressed  in  the  model 
work.  Most  relevant  land  categories  are  forests,  wetlands  and  peatland.  These 
categories are sufficiently covered in global datasets like GLC 2000, HWSD, GLWD and 
UNEP-WCMC carbon atlas (see Table 6-3).  

Regarding  an  overuse  of  forests,  the  G4M  model  applied  by  IIASA  for  estimating  the 
forest  harvesting  potential  in  consideration  to  site  conditions  such  that  the  harvest 
rates, including stem wood, branches and stumps, are below the regrowth rate. Only 
sustainable  forest  harvest  levels  are  considered  within  the  modelling  framework  that 
will be applied. Also information concerning extraction rates as specified in Section 3.2 
(biodiversity) may be considered.  

The  literature  review  highlights  that  time  lags  between  growth  and  use  of  forest 
biomass  can  influence  the  GHG-balance  of  a  bioenergy  pathway.  Here  both  are 
possible:  (1)  the  CO2-emission  when  burning  wood  occurs  earlier  than  the  CO2-
sequestration by the followed re-growth and (2) the material use of wood may fix CO2 
even longer than the re-growth would last (see also IPCC methodology on  Harvested 
Wood Products, HWP). In the IIASA modelling framework, a landscape level approach 

September 2014  26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

is taken when it comes to CO2-emissions related to harvest of wood, change in forest 
age  structural  dynamics,  and  change  in  forest  rotation  periods.  This  means  that 
overall forest landscape changes does impact GHG-emissions, but individual harvests 
and associated pay-back times are not considered. IPCC methodology concerning HWP 
pools are also fully accounted for in terms of in the framework that will be applied. 

Finally, a threshold on the reduction of GHG-emissions could possibly be implemented 
in  the  modelling  work  to  enable  the  exclusion  of  bioenergy  pathways  that  do  not 
match  the  reduction  goal  of,  e.g.,  60%.  This  aspect  could  be  implemented  as 
exclusion rule in the economic tool of the model. 

Table 6-3 
gas emissions 

List  of  dataset  to  address  sustainability  impacts  on  greenhouse 

Area type 

Dataset to be used 

SpecificationsStudy 

Biodiversity - loss of ecosystems 

High carbon stock - 
forests  
High carbon stock - 
wetlands 

High carbon stock – 
peatland 
High carbon stock 

Global Land Cover 2010 (GLC 
2010) 
Global lake and wetland 
database (GLWD) 
Global Land Cover 2010 (GLC 
2010) 
Harmonized World Soil Database 
(HWSD) 
UNEP-WCMC carbon atlas 

Land covered by forest types 

Location of wetlands 

Location of peatland (histosol) 

Location of area with high carbon stock 

September 2014  27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

7. Indirect land use effects and economic impacts 
Changes in land use are often the reason for impacts of the use of biomass on natural 
resources  and  the  environment.  Direct  impacts  from  land-use  change  are  already 
covered in the sections above,  e.g. the conversion of areas of high biodiversity value 
(Chapter  3.1),  increased  soil  erosion  due  to  stump  harvest  (Chapter  4.1)  and 
increased  use  of  water  by  short  rotation  coppice  in  comparison  to  agricultural  crops 
(Chapter 5.1). However, these direct land use impacts are in general under the control 
of  the  operator  producing  bioenergy  and  can  be  efficiently  addressed  by  regulations 
and certification schemes. 

In  contrast,  indirect  effects  and  related  impacts  are  mostly  out  of  the  control  of 
bioenergy operators. Indirect effects occur mainly as consequence of the displacement 
of  a  former  activity  to  fulfil  a  demand.  In  case  that  the  former  demand  still  exists, 
meeting this demand may case impacts elsewhere. The prominent example of indirect 
effects  is  indirect  land  use  change  (iLUC),  i.e.  impacts  from  land  use  change  after 
displacing a former crop (including residues) by bioenergy production (see overview in 
Agostini  et  al.  2013).  Though  rarely  reported  indirect  effects  may  also  occur  for  the 
use  of  other  resources  like  water  and  other  activities  like  a  reduced  use  of  wood  as 
materials due to an increased use for bioenergy. 

Due to the interaction of global markets, the increased use of biomass resources can 
impact different biomass uses as well as other sectors. Such impacts are mainly driven 
by  the  competition  for  resources  –  that  is  often  the  driver  for  indirect  effects 
mentioned  above.  Interaction  takes  place  through,  e.g.,  the  supply  and  demand  of 
biomass,  costs  and  prices,  trade  pattern,  technical  development,  changes  in  gross 
domestic  product  and  environmental  restrictions,  and  such  aspects  are  typically 
covered  in  economic  models.  Within  this  project,  economic  aspects  are  already 
covered in-depth in the review of Task 1. Under this Task the covered references are 
in  addition  screened  for  the  competition  with  other  uses,  increase  of  revenue,  and 
supply cost at the power plant. 

7.1.  Impacts from the use of biomass  

7.1.1.  Impacts of biomass production and its increase 

The  main  cause  for  indirect  land-use  change  found  in  the  reviewed  references  is  the 
competition for land resulting in the displacement of a  former land use,  e.g. for food 
or feed production, by the production of biomass for bioenergy  (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010, 
Agostini  et  al.  2013,  see  Table  7-1).  It  is  important  to  notice  that  displacement  can 
not only occur for products (e.g. rape seed) and co-products (press cake of rape seed 
as feed), but also for residues if they are used for a specific purpose and the demand 
still exists (e.g. forest residues used for pulp and paper).  

Furthermore  the  increased  demand  for  land  can  result  in  a  general  intensification  of 
land use – on bioenergy production areas as well as on other agricultural and forestry 
areas, for example the intensification of cereal cultivation (IEEP et al. 2010) or moving 
near natural forest towards intensive short rotation biomass production systems (Hart 
et  al.  2013).  Also  an  overuse  of  forest  resources,  i.e.  increasing  the  wood-extraction 
rate above the wood regrowth rate (GBEP 2011), can be an indirect effect caused by 
an increased demand for bioenergy. 

September 2014  28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

The overall reason for indirect land use change induced by the use of bioenergy is the 
increased  biomass  demand  and  the  related  production  and  competition  for  land 
resources.  In  consequence,  the  authors  of  the  covered  references  suggest  responses 
that release the pressure on the production of biomass and land already in use.  This 
could  be  achieved  by  focussing  biomass  production  on  currently  unused  land 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI  2010),  increase  the  use  of  unused  wastes  and  residues  (Hart  et  al. 
2013), and the intensification of land use (e.g. increased and improved management, 
fertilization,  suppression  of  natural  disturbances  like  wild  fires;  Agostini  et  al.  2013) 
Furthermore,  the  iLUC  effect  should  be  visible  in  the  calculation  of  greenhouse  gas 
emissions from bioenergy, i.e. by including an iLUC factor (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010). 

Most economic impacts of biomass production identified in literature review are related 
to competition. The main driver is that the future increased use of wood for bio-energy 
and the bio-economy will put pressure on the use of wood in the EU, and even a gap 
between  the  supply  and  demand  of  wood  can  be  expected  (Indufor  2013).  Already 
today  about  10%  of  total  traded  wood  chip  volumes  are  allocated  to  bioenergy 
production (IEA 2012: Lamers, Junginger et al.). Furthermore, the growing demand of 
wood  pellets  in  the  EU  is  driving  the  pellet  manufacturers  to  enlarge  the  feedstock 
base,  adapting  new  logistics  and  transportation  infrastructures,  refining  pellets 
(torrefaction;  IEA  2011,  see  Table  7-1).  This  pressure  is  expected  to  result  in  the 
displacement of wood products from existing uses (materials and energy;  Agostini et 
al. 2013). For example, the forest chip production can shift  from the use of tops and 
branches  towards  an  increasing  use  of  stem  wood  and  stumps  (Diaz  Yanez  et  al. 
2013),  and  the  optimisation  of  wood  chip  supply  chains  may  lead  to  a  shift  from 
material  use  towards  energy  use  (e.g.  Spain;  Anttila  et  al.  2011).  Another  economic 
impact is an intensification of forest management due to increased revenue for forest 
owners.  This  can  be  intensified  by  incentives  for  wood  use  (energy  or  other  uses) 
(Agostini  et  al.  2013).  Another  relevant  aspect  might  be  the  costs  of  land  depending 
on the production pressure. 

Table 7-1 
from biomass production and possible response found in literature 

Indirect  effects  and  land-use  impacts  and  economic  impacts 

Cause of impact 

Possible response 

Indirect land-use change and competition with other land use 

Displacement of former land-use (OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 

Movement away from near natural forests towards intensive 
short rotation biomass production systems (Hart et al. 2013) 

Expansion of production of straw (e.g. ploughing up of 
biodiversity-rich grasslands), but effect not likely (IEEP et al. 
2010) 
Competition for land cases indirect land use change, iLUC) 
(Agostini et al. 2013) 

Potential intensification or expansion of cereal cultivation (IEEP et 
al. 2010) 

Utilisation of unused land 
for bioenergy and including 
iLUC factor in GHG-
calculation are discussed 
(OEKO/IFEU/CI 2010) 
Use of wastes and residues 
as biomass to avoid land 
use change (Hart et al. 
2013) 
Not specified 

Management intensification, 
e.g. increased and 
improved management, 
fertilization, natural 
disturbances suppression 
etc. (Agostini et al. 2013) 
Not specified 

September 2014  29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Overuse of forests 

Wood-extraction rate is above the wood regrowth rate, 
depending on forest type and site conditions (GBEP 2011) 
Competition with other uses 

Displacement of wood for products (or indirect Wood Use 
Change, iWUC) (Agostini et al. 2013) 
Displacement of wood from other energy sectors (or indirect Fuel 
Use Change, iFUC) (Agostini et al. 2013) 
Restriction for stump extraction (Abbas et al. 2011) 

The future increased use of wood for bio-energy and the bio-
economy will put pressure on the use of wood in the EU. A gap 
between the supply and demand can be expected (Indufor 2013) 
Currently the bulk of the forest chips in the EU are produced from 
tops and branches, however shift towards increasing use of stem 
wood and stumps is expected as the demand grows (Diaz Yanez 
et al. 2013) 
In the global wood chip trade the current policies to reduce GHG 
emissions are driving the global trade of wood chips of pulp 
production to be replaced with chips to bioenergy production. It 
is estimated that app. 10% of total traded wood chip volumes are 
allocated to bioenergy production (IEA 2012: Lamers, Junginger 
et al.) 
Adopting Nordic forest chip supply chains to Spanish conditions 
can provide a feasible basis of utilizing the potential raw material 
in Spain to run heat energy business, whereas the local demand 
of wood for particle board production is declining (P. Anttila et al. 
2011) 
Increase of revenue 

Increased revenue for forest owners due to incentives for wood 
use (energy or other uses) casing an intensification of forest 
management (Agostini et al. 2013) 
Increased demand 

Growing demand of wood pellets in EU are driving the pellet 
manufacturers to enlarge the feedstock base, adapting new 
logistics and transportation infrastructures, refining pellets 
(torrefaction) (IEA 2011) 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

Not specified 

7.1.2.  Conversion, transport and use of biomass 

Along the production chain Asikainen et al. (2011) highlight that a high mechanization 
rate  of  wood  harvesting  (Scotland  90%,  Poland  5%)  lowers  the  supply  costs,  but 
small-scale  heating  systems  and  high  wood  chip  quality  requirements  increase  the 
supply  costs  (Scotland).  In  case  that  subsidies  (feed  in  tariffs  of  market  premiums) 
are  only  targeted  for  short  span  of  time,  delays  to  major  investments  in  large  wood 
pellet heating plants may occur since the investors do not have certainty of long term 
productivity of the projects (IEA 2013: Ikonen T., Asikainen A. et al.).  

September 2014  30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Table 7-2 

Economic impacts on conversion, transport and use of biomass 

Cause of impact 

Supply cost at the Power plant 

High mechanization rate of wood harvesting (Scotland 90%, Poland 5%) lowers 
the supply costs. Small-scale heating systems and high wood chip quality 
requirement increases the costs (Scotland) (Asikainen et al. 2011) 
Delay in investments 

Subsidies (feed in tariffs of market premiums) are only targeted for short span of 
time. This has caused delays to major investments in large wood pellet heating 
plants since the investors do not have certainty of long term productivity of the 
projects (IEA 2013: Ikonen T., Asikainen A. et al.) 

Suggested 
response 

Not specified 

Not specified 

7.2.  Proposals  to  address  indirect  effects  and  other  land-use 

impacts in the modelling framework 

Indirect effects and also economic impacts are mainly related to competition between 
different  biomass  uses  (energy,  material)  and  occur  for  biomass  resources  that  can 
potentially be deployed for different uses e.g. stem wood. Such effects are limited for 
the use of branches, stumps and residues. The construction of the model framework in 
combination  with  a  suitable  set  of  scenarios  should  address  effects  that  occur  from 
this circumstance. 

In  October  2012  the  European  Commission  adopted  a  proposal3  establishing  an 
approach  to  minimize  possible  ILUC  impacts  of  biofuels  consumed  in  the  EU.  This 
includes a cap on the contribution that first generation food  crops-based biofuels can 
make  towards  the  national  target  of  10%  renewable  energy  target  in  transport  by 
2020.  The  Commission  proposal  does,  however,  not  include  feedstock-specific  ILUC 
factors  due  to  the  uncertainties  associated  to  the  modelling4.  Such  uncertainties  also 
apply to biomass for heat and power. These points shall be reflected in the modelling 
framework. 

The  GLOBIOM  modelling  framework  allows  for  assessing  direct  and  indirect  land  use 
change  impacts  of  increasing  bioenergy  demand.  Baseline  developments  concerning 
land  use  for  new  plantations  and  development  of  agricultural  land  can  be  directly 
compared  to  scenarios  with  changed  assumptions.  Of  relevance  appear  mainly  the 
efficient  use  of  residues  and  wastes  (see  also  cascading  use  in  Section  8)  and  an 
increase  of  yields  higher  than  in  the  baseline.  These  points  may  be  addressed  in  the 
used economic model (GLOBIOM).  

Due to the situation that an increase of the pressure on the use of wood is likely, it is 
important to notice that the economic tool in the model framework (GLOBIOM) already 
covers competition between different uses of wood (energy use, material use including 
cascading; see Section  8). The approach that will be applied covers both competition 
for  forest  biomass  types  (steam,  branches,  and  stumps)  and  potential  uses  (energy, 
different  material)  within  the  economic  framework.  In  this  manner,  price  induced 
shifts,  including  incentives,  are  possible  as  well  as  fully  represented  endogenously 
within the framework that will be applied. Also increasing land prices  as well as price 

3 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/doc/biofuels/com_2012_0595_en.pdf  
4  Due  to  the  lack  of  an  agreed  methodology,  indirect  land  use  change  was  also  not 
included  in  the  GHG  calculation  of  the  Product  Environmental  Footprint  (PEF),  under 
the Commission's Recommendation 2013/179/EU. 

September 2014  31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

induced  forestry  intensification  may  be  included  within  the  model  framework  and  the 
analysis. 

September 2014  32 

 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

8. Cascading use of biomass 

Biomass  is  widely  used  in  the  EU  in  the  forestry  and  agricultural  sectors,  most 
importantly  for  food,  feed  and  material  production.  It is  also  an important  renewable 
resource  for  heat  and  energy  production.  However,  the  growing  demand  for  biomass 
calls for considerations so that resource competition does not lead to adverse negative 
impacts due to scarce available biomass resources. Potential competition risks can be 
addressed  by  sustainably  increasing  the  mobilisation  of  forest  and  agriculture 
feedstock,  or  by  implementing  innovative  ways  to  improve  the  efficient  use  of  the 
biomass resources as available. Both approaches may potentially address and mitigate 
the  above-mentioned  risks.  This  section  will  focus  on  the  second  approach  through 
improvements in the cascading use of biomass. 

Cascading  use  of  biomass  refers  to  re-use  and  recycling  of  biomass  products  so  that 
“biomass  is  processed  into  a  bio-based  final  product  and  this  final  product is  used  at 
least  once  more  either  for  materials  or  energy”  (Essel  et  al.  2014).  The  cascading 
principles have long traditions of deployment especially in the forest industries, where 
the  pulp  and  paper  industries  as  well  as  sawmill  industries  have  well-established 
chains of using the biomass for different purposes in different stages of its lifecycle. A 
typical  example  of  a  cascading  chain  is  the  use  of  roundwood  in  paper  production, 
where the cellulose  fibres  can be used for paper  recovered as  recycled paper several 
times,  and  thereafter  the  paper  sludge  can  be  pressed  into  paper  bricks  and,  finally, 
used as an energy feedstock. 

Cascading,  especially  in  the  form  of  recycling  and  re-using,  is  already  widely  used 
within the biomass sector.  However, examples of explicitly using cascading to reduce 
environmental  impacts  of  industries,  or  improving  the  effectiveness  of  the  cascading 
chain, are mostly limited to more theoretical research projects.  

Political  interest  in  cascading  use  of  biomass  has  increased  considerably  in  recent 
years at the EU level, given that it complements goals to increase resource efficiency 
and  the  increasing  interest  in  the  bioeconomy  (COM  2012)  and  bioenergy  (e.g.  COM 
2013). 

In this literature review, the focus is on measures and instruments affecting prospects 
for  cascading  use  in  the  EU.  In  order  to  specify  aspects  to  take  into  account  in  the 
future  scenario  analysis,  the  literature  is  also  scanned  for  possible  indicators  of 
cascading  use  and  its  environmental  effects.  Finally,  the  possible  ways  to  implement 
policy measures into the scenario models are examined. 

8.1.  Defining cascading use 

Comparing different studies on cascading use is complicated by the fact that there has 
not been a clear consensus on the definition of cascading use of biomass. A number of 
definitions of the term have been presented, focusing on various benefits for cascade 
use  (e.g.  economic,  environmental,  and  industrial),  various  industrial  sectors  are 
involved  (e.g.  wood-processing,  recycling,  and  energy  sector),  and  aim  of  the  study 
(e.g. theoretical evaluation or practical implementation). A short overview of the large 
range of definitions that have been provided will be given here. 

Essel et al. (2014) offer the definition above, focusing on the material use of biomass 
at  least  at  one  point  of  the  biomass  life  cycle.  COM  (2013)  uses  a  more  explicit 
definition  for  a  cascading  chain,  with  product-use  being  prioritized  before  re-use, 
recycling,  bioenergy  and  disposal  in  a  decreasing  order  of  preference.  While  the 
concept of cascading overlaps with for example concepts of circular economy and  the 

September 2014  33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

waste hierarchy, it is sometimes also used to  refer to very  complex systems  of main 
and by-products (Essel et al. 2014).  

Cascading  use  is  referred  to  as  single-stage  if  a  product  made  of  virgin  wood  is 
discarded  and  then  directly  used  for  energy  (the  biomass  is  used  only  for  a  single 
purpose, and then for energy). If there are two or more material uses for the biomass 
before  its  energy  use  (for  example,  discarded  wooden  furniture  chipped  and  pressed 
into  particleboards),  cascading  is  said  to  be  multi-stage  (Essel  et  al.  2014).  Odegard 
et  al.  (2012)  differentiate  biomass  cascading  chains  also  with  respect  to  the 
dimensions in time, value and function – often all three elements are incorporated for 
the  best  environmental  result.  Cascading  in  time  refers  to  increasing  the  lifespan  of 
biomass  by  leaving  as  many  future  uses  open  as  possible,  as  in  paper  recycling. 
Cascading  in  value  refers  to  prioritizing  the  alternative  uses  of  the  biomass  with 
respect  to  their  value.  Cascading  in  function  refers  to  co-production  of  biomass 
products, so that the biomass stream is used for different types of products in order to 
promote as much functional use as possible.  

Modelling  cascading  use  first  requires  an  understanding  of  the  possible  and  existing 
biomass  flows  (Odegard  et  al.  2012,  Mantau  et  al.  2010).  In  order  to  quantify  the 
cascading  use,  indicators  or  proxys  are  needed.  Mantau  (2012)  developed  a  detailed 
wood flow chart to calculate cascade factors for different cascading chains (Table 8-1). 
A  cascade  factor  describes  the  relation  between  all  wood  resources  (roundwood  and 
other  wood  resources),  and  the  resources  from  roundwood.  This  makes  it is  possible 
to calculate the input-output relation of wood for certain parts of the wood value chain 
(Mantau  2012),  or  for  the  whole  chain  of  woody  biomass  use,  as  done  by  Indufor 
(2013).  The  cascade  factor  provides  thus  a  useful  indicator  for  comparisons  of  the 
extent of cascading between different value chains and also over time. 

Table 8-1 An example of the calculation of cascade factors 

Utilization of wood biomass 

A  Roundwood resources 

B  Residues in wood products 

C  Residues in energy 

D  Recycling in products 

E  Recovery in energy 

F  Residue cascades 

G  Recycling + recovery cascades  

H  Cascades in products 

I  Residues + recycling in energy  

J  Total cascades 

Total 
volume  
(M m³) 
577,1 

72,9 

103,4 

130,2 

24,4 

176,3 

154,6 

203,0 

127,9 

330,9 

Cascade 
factor 

Calculation 

1,13 

1,18 

1,23 

1,04 

1,31 

1,27 

1,35 

1,22 

1,57 

(A+B)/A 

(A+C)/A 

(A+D)/A 

(A+E)/A 

(A+B+C)/A 

(A+D+E)/A 

(A+B+D)/A 

(A+C+E)/A 

(A+H+I)/A 

Adopted  from:  Mantau  (2012);  the  numerical  values  for  total  volume  and  cascade  factors  are  illustrative 
only. 

In the reviewed literature, central issues used for comparing the impacts of cascading 
use  are  land  use,  CO2  emission  reductions,  and  costs  and  energy  demand  of 
production  (Dornburg  and  Faaij  2005,  Sathre  and  Gustavsson  2006).  Usually  the 
reference system is chosen so that it produces the same material or energy functions. 
However,  if  several  different  or  alternative  functions  are  produced  through  the 

September 2014  34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

cascading  chain,  the  systems  may  become  too  complex  to  compare  reliably. 
Therefore,  Dornburg  and  Faaij  (2005)  emphasize  the  importance  of  comparing  every 
single biomass chain with a single reference system.  

Production  costs  and  energy  needed  for  production  are  relatively  straightforward  to 
calculate.  The  whole  value  chain  needs  to  be  taken  into  account:  the  different 
amounts  of  energy  to  produce,  transport  and  process  virgin  and  recovered  wood,  as 
well  as  the  differences  in  by-product  quantities  (Sathre  and  Gustavsson  2006).  The 
quantification  of  land  use  and  CO2  emissions  is  not  as  easy,  as  these  may  occur  at 
very different time points in alternative biomass production and cascading chains. For 
example,  the  rotation  period  –  the  time  that  the  land  is  needed  for  one  production 
cycle – in conventional forestry may be 100 years, whereas it in short rotation energy 
crops  it  is  only  a  few  years.  On  the  material  side,  the  time  point  when  sequestrated 
carbon  is  released  is  also  very  different:  for  fuelwood  it  is  almost  directly  after 
harvest,  for  paper  maybe  in  a  few  weeks  after  production,  and  for  building  material 
possibly more than a hundred years after harvest. That is, the negative climate effects 
of  CO2  emissions  also  occur  at  very  different  time  points.  One  possibility  to  account 
for the different time horizons is to calculate the CO2 reductions of different land uses, 
and  discount  the  monetary  value  of  CO2  emissions  at  different  points  in  time  to  the 
present day (Dornburg and Faaij 2005). 

A clear definition of cascading use is of particular importance when aiming to increase 
cascading  use  through  political instruments.  Each  of  the  definition  as  specified  above 
has  advantages  and  disadvantages  in  terms  of  the  part  of  the  system  that  they  are 
able  to  cover  and  accurately  represent.  As  expressed  by  AEBIOM  et  al.  (2013)  and 
Essel  et  al.  (2014),  narrowing  the  definition  to  multi-stage  cascading  implies  hard 
restrictions  on  the  biomass-using  industries  and  may  be  impossible  for  many  value 
chains. If single-stage cascading is also accepted within the term, more of the already 
existing product value chains may be counted in as utilizing the cascading principle. 

8.2.  Possible measures and instruments 

There are several possible policy instruments that could be used to promote cascading 
use  of  biomass.  Table  8-2  provides  an  overview  of  the  instruments  that  have  been 
suggested  in  the  reviewed  literature.  The  most  central  issues  are  the  need  for  clear 
definitions  of  cascading  use  over  the  whole  biomass  lifecycle;  imposition  of  taxes, 
subsidies  and  legal  measures  to  promote  cascading  use;  and  cross-disciplinary  and 
intergovernmental  dialogue  for  developing  more  efficient  logistical  and  technological 
solutions  in  different  cascading  stages.  As  noted  by  Haberl  and  Geissler  (2000), 
notable  gains  in  the  total  energy  balance  could  be  achieved  by  also  utilizing  the 
currently  unused  biomass  residues  in  energy  production.  However,  this  is  likely  to 
require considerable investments in waste collection and treatment facilities. 

Possible ways to increase cascading use through policy tools 

Table 8-2 
Measures 

New paradigm of resource value 
(Sirkin et al. 1994) 

Improvement of resource efficiency 
(Sirkin et al. 1994) 

Instruments 

Taking total utility into account when assigning the 
product prices, also reflecting the resource quality and 
potential utility, and not solely market prices of the 
resources. This includes special valuation of vital 
resource qualities (qualities that cannot be replaced, 
such as food biomass quality), over non-vital (e.g. 
biomass for energy, where there are many alternatives)   
Policies for promoting product durability; effective re-
collection and distribution systems for used and 
reclaimed materials; co-production and co-design 

September 2014  35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Balancing consumption with 
replenishment (Sirkin et al. 1994) 

Promoting cascadable design (Sirkin et 
al. 1994) 

Defining the criteria of the cascade 
(Keegan and Kretschmer 2013) 

Enhanced use of ecodesign to ensure 
technical feasibility of cascading use 
(Keegan and Kretschmer 2013) 
Solving the logistical challenges of 
cascading use (Keegan and 
Kretschmer 2013) 
Solving related policy challenges 
(Keegan and Kretschmer 2013) 
Financial measures (Keegan and 
Kretschmer 2013, Odegard et al. 
2012) 
Policy and/or legal measures (Odegard 
et al. 2012) 
Example from Austria: 
Utilizing the unused biomass residues 
for energy generation could contribute 
6% (76 PJ) of the energy consumption 
(Haberl and Geissler 2000) 
International agreement on limited 
biomass availability (IEA Bioenergy 
2009) 

Develop multi-disciplinary partnerships 
to foster R&D and deployment of new 
technologies (IEA Bioenergy 2009) 

Policy measures encouraging the development of 
methods for efficient resource regeneration and 
replenishment; production methods and product design 
with exploit replenishable and renewable sources 
Formulating standard requirements for 
interchangeability; standard requirements for the 
utilisation of substances and materials; replacement 
equivalent deposit systems  or introduction of resource 
compensation cost into the price of products; imposition 
of levies on products which cannot be cascaded or 
disassembled 
Taking entire life-cycles into account; water use 
efficiency and impacts on natural resources (including 
biodiversity); social considerations (supply security, and 
economic viability); waste prevention 
Research and development. 

Encouraging interdisciplinary research and strong links 
between sectors; strengthening the operation of waste 
collection and separation 
Coordinated policies across government ministries 
(industry, agriculture, environment, research) 
Imposition of taxes on the use of virgin raw material, 
subsidizing energy sector for cascading use of biomass 

Recycling targets, landfill bans, adjusting laws that 
complicate the alternative uses of biogenic waste 
Account for combustion of woody wastes (from housing, 
agriculture) and straw from grain production; and 
utilizing wet municipal organic wastes, animal dung, 
organic residue from plant production as biogas 

Maximizing biomass conversion efficiency by minimizing 
raw material requirements while strengthening the 
economic position of agriculture, forestry, chemical and 
energy sectors. 
Bring together key stakeholders from different market 
sectors (agriculture and forestry, transportation fuels, 
chemicals, energy…) 

8.3.  Proposals  to  address  cascading  use 

in  the  modelling 

framework 

Within this project, we propose first to analyse the extent of cascading in the different 
bioenergy  scenarios  using  cascade  factors  presented  in  Table  8-2  (Mantau  2012, 
Indufor  2013).  At  this  first  stage,  we  will  assess  the  potential  use  of  the  above-
mentioned  indicators  within  the  modelling  framework  and  how  they  could  be  applied 
to  provide  insight  to  the  model  development  over  time.  The  indicators  will  then  be 
monitored  to  show  how  cascading  evolves  over  time,  both  in  total  and  in  different 
parts of the value chain. The indicators will at first strictly be used as a monitoring tool 
to  analyse  and  inform  how  change  in  cascading  may  occur  over  time,  and  how 
different  scenarios  may  impact  the  applied  indicators.  This  in  turn  allows  also  an 
analysis  of  the  differences  between  the  scenarios  in  overall  land  use  change  and 
related CO2 emissions in relation to cascading use. 

September 2014  36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Within  a  second  stage,  policy  measures  identified  in  this  review  as  particularly 
important  for  increasing  cascade  use  will  be  assessed  in  terms  of  their  potential 
impact on the cascade indicators developed in the first stage. The policy measures for 
cascading use touch on different aspects of the wood cascade chain, and are expected 
to affect the  cascade indicators  differently. The main underlying storylines  may  focus 
on (i) improved waste recovery through policy targets, i.e. maximise recycling of solid 
wood  and  (ii)  imposing  taxes  on  the  energy  use  of  virgin  raw  material.  These 
envisioned  policies  measured  are  of  particular  interest  as  they  are  expected  to  have 
direct  implications  for  the  cascade  indicators  to  be  used  and  on  the  other 
environmental and economy indicators that are to be monitored. 

September 2014  37 

 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

9. Conclusions 

Impacts of biomass use on natural resources and the global environment are manifold. 
The  project  attempts  to  cover  the  most  relevant  impacts  in  the  model  framework 
(Task  3)  and  assesses  them  in  the  subsequent  analysis  of  impacts  (Task  4).  The 
literature  review  carried  out  in  the  project  gives  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the 
current knowledge on possible impacts on biodiversity, soil, water bodies, greenhouse 
gas emissions and indirect effects and other land-use impacts, including some aspects 
on economic impacts. Each impact category was divided into detailed impacts, e.g. soil 
erosion, soil carbon loss, soil compaction, soil nutrient loss and soil salinization for the 
category soil. A set of 40 references was considered relevant after categorization from 
an  initial  list  of  202  references.  The  selected  references  were  then  analyzed  for 
detailed  impacts  that  were  reported,  as  well  as  the  causes  of  impacts  and  the 
responses suggested by the literature. Despite the complexity of the issue, the project 
tried to also identify important aspects regarding responses to impacts reported in the 
reviewed  literature  that  have  the  potential  to  help  reduce  negative  impacts  (see 
summary in Table 9-1). 

The  use  of  biomass  for  energy  purposes  can  potentially  be  a  driver  of  loss  of 
biodiversity,  linked  primarily  to  direct  and  indirect  land-use  change  and  increasing 
intensity of land use. The increasing use of biomass is likely to increase this pressure. 
The screening of literature carried out in this project focused on the following detailed 
impacts:  loss  of  species,  loss  of  ecosystems,  damage  of  flora  and  fauna  and  loss  of 
ecosystem  functions.  From  a  biodiversity  perspective  the  review  showed  that  two 
aspects  are  of  high  relevance:  a)  the  protection  of  areas  with  high  biodiversity  value 
and b) sustainable extraction rates of dead wood, residues, stumps and old trees. 

The review showed that most soil impacts are very site specific and require respective 
soil conservation measures. For sensitive areas measures may include the exclusion of 
areas from production and the restriction of residue and stump extraction (Table 9-1). 
However,  the  amount  of  biomass  extraction  can  be  part  of  the  soil  conservation 
measure  (e.g.  mulching  with  straw,  retaining  nutrient  cycle  by  leaving  branches  and 
leaves  on  site)  and  lead  to  win-win  situations.  Other  soil  conservation  methods 
increase  the  possible  extraction  rate  but  entail  higher  production  costs  (e.g. 
fertilization with ash). Some soil conservation measures may also only cause costs and 
not  necessarily  contribute  to 
improved  yields  (e.g.  adaption  of  machinery, 
windbreaks).  Finally,  specific  soil  conservation  measures  may  lead  to  a  lowering  of 
yields  compared  to  the  option  without  measures  (e.g.  adoption  of  crop  rotation  to 
allow  straw  extraction).  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  favour  win-win  measures  that 
contribute to soil conservation while positively impacting biomass production.  

The identified impacts on  water are of lower  relevance  compared to  e.g. impacts on 
biodiversity  and  soil.  This  is  due  to  the  focus  of  the  literature  review  on  systems 
producing solid biomass that are largely rain-fed systems. The most relevant potential 
negative  impacts  on  water  are  a)  overuse  of  freshwater  resources  in  water  scarce 
regions,  b)  pollution  of  waterbodies  from  the  application  of  fertilizer  and  pesticides, 
and c) pollution of waterbodies from process waste water (Table 9-1). However, there 
can  also  be  positive  impacts  of  biomass  production  systems,  e.g.  on  ground  water 
supply. 

Strong impacts on greenhouse gas emissions from biomass production occur when 
areas of high carbon stock are converted to bioenergy plantations of low carbon stock, 
but  also  an  increase  of  wood  extraction,  including  whole  tree  harvest  and  residue 
extraction,  can  lower  the  carbon  stock  of  forests  (Table  9-1).  However,  there  are 

September 2014  38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

cases  where  long-term  active  forest  management  can  increase  biomass  and  timber 
production  while  still  safeguarding  the  forest  carbon  stock  at  the  landscape  level. 
Examples  of  such  improvements  range  from  the  promotion  of  regeneration  and 
silvicultural management to enhancing forest growth (through improved timing of pre-
commercial  cutting,  thinning  efforts,  fertilization,  etc.).  When  including  substitution 
effects on GHG emissions within the energy and industry sector, managing forests for 
products  and  services  (energy  and/or  materials)  can  also  determine  higher  GHG 
savings than suspending the management. 

Table 9-1 
reduce negative impacts from biomass use on the environment 

Important  points  identified  from  the  reviewed  literature  to 

Environmental aspect 

Biodiversity 

  The protection of areas with high biodiversity value  

  Sustainable extraction rates of dead wood, residues, stumps and old trees 

Soil 

  Identification of exclusion areas where (i) no production at all is allowed at all and (ii) where 
no residue or stump extraction should occur (e.g. depending on steep slopes, poor soils, wet 
soils) 

  Restriction of residue and stump extraction on all remaining areas 

  Lowering the development of yields, i.e. assuming a lower annual yield-increase rate 

assuming stronger soil protection measures 

Waterbodies 

  Avoid overuse of freshwater resources in water scarce regions 

  Avoid pollution of waterbodies from the application of fertilizer and pesticides 

  Avoid pollution of waterbodies from process waste water 

Greenhouse gas emissions 

  No conversion of areas of high carbon stock 

  No overuse of forests 

  Time lag of forest growth and wood use, both for energy and materials 

  Threshold for the GHG-emission reduction compared to fossil sources 

Indirect  effects  (for  all  environmental  impacts)  occur  mainly  as  a  consequence  of 
the  displacement  of  a  former  activity  to  fulfil  a  demand.  In  case  that  the  former 
demand  still  exists,  meeting  this  demand  may  case  impacts  elsewhere,  especially  as 
further  biomass  production  will  tend  to  extend  into  less  fertile  soils  (hence  requiring 
more inputs such as fertilizers and/or water) and/or into areas  with higher  ecological 
value. Results from the literature  review on indirect effects and on economic impacts 
showed that both aspects are mainly related to competition between different biomass 
uses  (energy,  material)  for  biomass  resources  such  as  stem,  branches,  stumps  and 
residues.  

Finally a literature review was carried out for the cascading use of biomass, focusing 
on measures and instruments to incentivize it. The most central issues  and proposed 
methods  for  increasing  cascading  mentioned  in  the  covered  studies  are  the  need  for 
clear  definitions  of  cascading  use  over  the  whole  biomass  lifecycle;  imposition  of 
taxes, subsidies and legal measures to promote cascading use; and cross-disciplinary 
dialogue for developing more efficient logistical and technological solutions in different 
cascading stages. 

September 2014  39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

10.  References 

Please  note  that  the  references  are  split  in  two  reference  lists  (see  details  in 
Appendix 1):  

  References that are cited in the text of this study and/or used in the in-depth 

literature review (Section 10.1) 

  Further references that have been considered in the pre-selection of the literature 

review (Section 10.2) 

10.1.  References  cited  in  the  report  and  used  in  the  in-depth 

literature review 

Abbas.  D.,  Currentb,  D.,  Phillipsc,  M.,  Rossmand,  R.,  Hogansonf,  H.,  Brookse,  K.  N. 
(2011).  Guidelines  for  harvesting  forest  biomass  for  energy:  A  synthesis  of 
environmental considerations; in: Biomass and Bioenergy 35: 4538-4546. 

ADAS  (2008).  Addressing  the  land  use  issues  for  non-food  crops,  in  response  to 
increasing fuel and energy generation opportunities. NNFCC project 08-004, ADAS, 
Hereford. 

AEBIOM  (European  Biomass  Association),  CEPF  (Confederation  of  European  Forest 
Owner),  COPA  COGECA  (European  Farmers  European  Agri-Cooperatives),  EIPS 
(European Industry of  Pellet Suppliers), ELO (European Landowners Organization), 
EUSTAFOR (European State Forest Association) (2013). Joint statement on cascade 
http://www.aebiom.org/wp-
use 
online 
content/uploads/2009/11/Joint-statement-on-cascade-use-of-wood-final.pdf 
[3 
September 2014] 

Available 

wood. 

at: 

of 

Agostini,  A.,  Giuntoli,  J.,  Boulamanti,  A.,  Marelli,  L.  (2013).  Carbon  accounting  of 
forest  bioenergy.  (L.  Marelli,  Ed.).  Joint  Research  Center  of  the  European 
Commission (JRC), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Aherne,  J.,  Posch,  M.,  Forsius,  M.,  Lehtonen,  A.,    Härkönen,  K.  (2011).  Impacts  of 
forest biomass removal on soil nutrient status under climate change: a catchment-
based modelling study for Finland. Biogeochemistry 107: 471-488. 

Alexopoulous,  E.,  Christou,  M.,  Eleftheriadis,  I.  (2010).  Role  of  4F  cropping  in 
determining  future  biomass  potentials,  including  sustainability  and  policy  related 
issues.  A  publication  as  part  of  the  Biomass  Futures  project.  Biomass  role  in 
achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand and Supply 
dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders. Update in March 2012. IEE 08 653 
SI2. 529 241. Available online at: 
http://www.biomassfutures.eu/public_docs/final_deliverables/WP3/D3.2%20Role%
20of%204F%20crops.pdf [3 September 2014]. 

Anttila P., Asikainen A., Laitila J., Broto M., Campanero I. (2011). Potential and Supply 
Costs  of  Wood  Chips  from  Forests  in  Soria,  Spain.  Instituto  Nacional  de 
Investigación  y  Tecnología  Agraria  y  Alimentaria  (INIA).  Forest  Systems  2011  20: 
245-254. 

ARCADIS,  EUNOMIA  (2010).  Assessment  of  the  options  to  improve  the  management 
European 
Nr 
for  European  Commission  DG  Environment, 

contract 

Union. 

Study 

the 

in 

bio-waste 

of 
07.0307/2008/517621/ETU/G4 
Brussels. 

September 2014  40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Asikainen  A.,  Röser  D.,  Laitila  J.,  Sikanen  L.  (2011).  Feasibility  of  the  Nordic  forest 
energy  harvesting  technology  in  Poland  and  Scotland.  Biomass  and  Bioenergy  35: 
4565-4569. 

Baral,  A.,  Malins,  C.  (2013).  Comprehensive  carbon  accounting  for  identification  of 
sustainable  biomass  feedstocks.  White  paper,  January  2014.  International  Council 
on 
at: 
http://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_carbonaccounting-
biomass_20140123.pdf [3 September 2014] 

Transportation, 

Washington. 

Available 

online 

Clean 

BCFN (Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition) (2012) Food waste: causes, impacts and 
proposals. 
at: 
http://www.barillacfn.com/BcfnTalks/FoodWaste_englishversion.pdf[3  September 
2014]. 

Available 

Parma, 

BCNF, 

online 

Italy. 

Bellamy,P.E.,  Croxton,  P.J.,  Heard,  M.S.,  Hinsley,  S.A.,  Hulmes,  L.,  Hulmes,  S., 
Nuttall, P., Pywell, R.F., Rothery, P. (2009). The impacts of growing miscanthus for 
biomass on farmland bird populations. Biomass and Bioenergy 33: 191-199. 

Berndes, G., Ahlgren, S., Börjesson, P., Cowie, A. L. (2013).  Bioenergy and land use 
change-state  of  the  art.  Wiley  Interdisciplinary  Reviews:  Energy  and  Environment, 
2:282–303. 

Böttcher,  H.,  Freibauer,  A.,  Scholz,  Y.,  Gitz,  V.,  Ciais,  P.,  Mund,  M.  et  al.  (2012). 
Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change. Carbon Balance 
and Management 7: 5. DOI: 10.1186/1750-0680-7-5. 

Bouget C, Lassauce A, Jonsell M (2012). Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity 
— a review focused on the situation in Europe. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 
42: 1421-1432. 

Britz W., Hertel T. W. (2009). Impacts of EU biofuels directives on global markets and 
EU  environmental  quality:  An  integrated  PE,  global  CGE  analysis.  Agriculture, 
Ecosystems and Environment 142: 102-109. 

Carus, M., Carrez, D., Kaeb, H., Venus, J. (2011). Policy paper on bio-based economy 
in the EU: Level playing field for bio-based chemistry and materials. Nova Institute, 
Hürth, Germany. Available online at: www.bio-based.eu/policy/en [28 July 2014] 

CBD  (Convention  on  Biological  Diversity)  (2009).  Water,  Wetlands  and  Forests.  A 
Review  of  Ecological,  Economic  and  Policy  Linkages.  Secretariat  of  the  Convention 
on Biological Diversity and Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. CBD 
Technical Series No. 47, Montreal and Gland. 

Cherubini, F. (2010). GHG balances of bioenergy systems  – Overview of key steps in 
the  production  chain  and  methodological  concerns.  Renewable  Energy  35:  1565–
1573. DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.035. 

COM  (European  Commission)  (2012).  Innovating 

for  sustainable  growth:  a 
bioeconomy  for  Europe.  Communication  from  the  commission  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee  of  the  Regions.  COM(2012)  60  final.  9  p.  Available  online  at: 
http://http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/201202_innovating_sustainab
le_growth_en.pdf [7 August 2014] 

September 2014  41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

COM  (European  Commisson)  (2013).  A  new  EU  Forest  Strategy:  for  forests  and  the 
forest-based  sector.  Communication  from  the  commission  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee  of 
final.  Available  online  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/staff-working-doc_en.pdf  [26  July 
2014] 

the  Regions,  COM(2013)  659 

Diaz  Yanez  O.,  Mola-Yudego  B.,  Anttila  P.,  Asikainen  A.  (2013).  Forest  Chips  for 
Energy  in  Europe:  Current  Procurement  Methods  and  Potentials.  Renewable  and 
Sustainable Energy Reviews 21: 562-571. 

Dimitriou, I., Baum, C., Baum, S., Busch, G., Schulz, U., Köhn, J., …, Bolte, A. (2011). 
Quantifying environmental effects of Short Rotation Coppice ( SRC ) on biodiversity, 
soil  and  water.  Quantifying  environmental  effects  of  Short  Rotation  Coppice  (SRC) 
on biodiversity, soil and water. IEA BIOENERGY: Task 43: 2011:01. Available online 
at:   http://ieabioenergytask43.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/IEA_Bioenergy_Task43_TR2011-01.pdf 
2014] 

[3  September 

Don,  A.,  Osborne,  B.,  Hastings,  A.,  Skiba,  U.  T.  E.,  Carter,  M.  S.,  Mike,  B.  et  al. 
(2012).  Land-use  change  to  bioenergy  production  in  Europe  :  implications  for  the 
greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon. GCB Bioenergy 4: 372–391.  

Dornburg,  V.,  Faaij,  A.P.C.  (2005).  Cost  and  CO2-emission  reduction  of  biomass 
cascading:  methodological  aspects  and  case  study  of  SRF  poplar.  Climatic  Change 
71: 373-408. 

EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2013a). Review of the EU bioenergy potential 
from  a  resource  efficiency  perspective.  Background  report  to  EEA  study; 
Copenhagen. 

Eggers  J.,  Tröltzsch  K.,  Falcucci  A.,  Maiorano  L.,  Verburg  P.  H.,  Framstad  E.,  …. 
Delbaere  B.  E.  N.  (2009).  Is  biofuel  policy  harming  biodiversity  in  Europe?  GCB 
Bioenergy 1: 18-34. 

Essel, R., Breitmayer, E., Carus, M., Fehrenbach, H., von Geibler, J., Bienge, K., Baur, 
F.  (2014).  Discussion  paper:  defining  cascading  use  of  biomass.  R&D-Project 
"Increasing  resource  efficiency  by  cascading  use  of  biomass  -  from  theory  to 
practice", Nova Institute, Hürth, Germany.  

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2013). Food Wastage 
Footprint (FWF) Impacts on Natural Resources Summary Report. FAO, Rome, Italy. 
[3 
online 
Available 
September 2014]. 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf 

at: 

Fernholz  K  et  al.  (2009).  Energy  from  Woody  Biomass:  A  Review  of  Harvesting 
Guidelines  and  a  Discussion  of  Related  Challenges;  Dovetail  Partners,  Inc.. 
Prepared for the Pinocet Institute for Conservation. Minneapolis MN. 

Finnan J., Styles D., Fitzgerald J.B., Connolly J., Donnelly A. (2012). Using a Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  Framework  to  quantify  the  environmental  impact  of 
bioenergy plans. GCB Bioenergy 4: 311-329. 

September 2014  42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Forestry  Commission  Scotland  (2009).  The  Scottish  Government’s  Rationale  For 
Woodland  Expansion.  Forestry  Commission  Scotland,  Edinburgh,  UK.  Available 
online at:   
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ForestExpansion.pdf/$FILE/ForestExpansion.pdf  [3 
September 2014]. 

Forströmm, J., Pingoud, K., Pohjola, J., Vilén, T., Valsta L., Verkerk, H. (2012). Wood-
based  biodiesel  in  Finland.  Market-mediated  impacts  on  emissions  and  costs.  VTT 
Technology 7. VTT, Espoo, Finland.  

GBEP  (Global  Bio-Energy  Partnership)  (2011).  The  GBEP  Sustainability  Indicators  for 

Bioenergy. GBEP, Rome. 

Gerssen-Gondelach,  S.  J.,  Saygin,  D.,  Wicke,  B.,  Patel,  M.  K.,  Faaij,  A.  P.  C.  (2014). 
Competing  uses  of  biomass:  Assessment  and  comparison  of  the  performance  of 
bio-based  heat,  power,  fuels  and  materials.  Renewable  and  Sustainable  Energy 
Reviews 40: 964–998. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.197. 

Gheewala, S., Yeh, S., Fingerman, K., Diaz-Chavez, R., Moraes, M., Fehrenbach, H., … 

Wani, S. (2011). The bioenergy and water nexus. UNEP. 

Gibbs,  H.K.,  Johnston,  M.,  Foley,  J.,  Holloway,  T.,  Monfreda,  C.,  Ramankutty,  N., 
Zaks,  D.  (2008).  Carbon  payback  times  for  crop-based  biofuel  expansion  in  the 
tropics:  The  effects  of  changing  yield  and  technology,  Environmental  Research 
Letters 3:034001 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034001. 

Gove,  B,  Flower,  K  A  and  Bradbury,  R  B  (2010).  A  review  of  environmental 
consequences  of  biomass  production  for  UK  energy  consumption.  RSPB  Research 
Report No. 38. RSB, Sandy. 

Groom,  M.  J.,  G.  K.  Meffe,  C.  R.  Carroll  et  al.  (2006).  Principles  of  conservation 

biology. 3rd edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 

Haberl,  H.,  Geissler,  S.  (2000).  Cascade  utilization  of  biomass:  strategies  for  a  more 

efficient use of a scarce resource. Ecological Engineering 16: S111-S121.  

Hart  K,  Allen  B,  Lindner  M,  Keenleyside  C,  Burgess  P,  Eggers  J,  Buckwell  A  (2013). 
Land as an Environmental Resource, Report Prepared for DG Environment, Contract 
No  ENV.B.1/ETU/2011/0029,  Institute  for  European  Environmental  Policy  (IEEP), 
London. 

Havlík P, Schneider UA, Schmid E, Böttcher, H., Fritz, S. Skalský, R., …, Obersteiner, 
M.  (2011).  Global  land-use  implications  of  first  and  second  generation  biofuel 
targets. Energy Policy 39: 5690-5702. 

Hellmann  F.,  Verburg  P.  H.  (2010).  Impact  assessment  of  the  European  biofuel 
directive  on  land  use  and  biodiversity.  Journal  of  Environmental  Management,  91 
1389-1396. 

IEA  Bioenergy  (International  Energy  Agency)  (2009).  Biorefineries:  adding  value  to 
the  sustainable  utilization  of  biomass.  Task  42  Booklet.  Available  online  at: 
http://www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/biorefineries-adding-value-to-the-
sustainable-utilisation-of-biomass/ [25 July 2014]. 

September 2014  43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

IEA (International Energy Agency) (2011). IEA Bioenergy: Global Wood Pellet Industry 
at: 
Study. 

Market 
online 
http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/t40-global-wood-pellet-market-
study_final.pdf [25 July 2014]. 

Available 

Trade 

and 

IEA (International Energy Agency) (2012). Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade. 
Global Wood Chip Trade for Energy. IEA BIOENERGY: Task 40. Available online at: 
http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/t40-global-wood-chips-study_final.pdf 
[25 July 2014]. 

IEA  (International  Energy  Agency)  (2013).  IEA  BIOENERGY:  Task  43:  Economic 

Sustainability of Biomass Feedstock Supply 

IEEP 

for 

(Institute 

European 

Environmental 

Ecologic,  Arcadis, 
Umweltbundesamt,  BIO  Intelligence  Services,  Vito  (2010).  Final  Report  – 
Supporting  The  Thematic  Strategy  On  Waste  Prevention  And  Recycling,  Service 
Request  Five  Under  Contract  Env.G.4/Fra/2008/0112,  25  October  2010.  Available 
online at:   
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/Final%20Report%20final%2025%20Oc
t.pdf [3 September 2014]. 

Policy), 

IINAS (International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy), EFI (European 
Forest Institute), JR (Joanneum Research) (2014). Forest biomass for energy in the 
EU: current trends, carbon balance and sustainable potential. Darmstadt. 

Indufor (2013). Study on the wood raw material supply and demand for the EU wood-
processing  industries.  European  Commission,  Enterprise  and  Industry  Directorate 
General.  Available  online  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/wood-paper-
printing/files/indufor-report-part1_en.pdf [25 July 2014] 

JRC  (Joint  Research  Centre),  IES  (Institute  for  Environment  and  Sustainability) 
(2011).  Supporting  Environmentally  Sound  Decisions  for  Bio-Waste  Management  - 
A practical guide to Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). EUR 
24917 EN-2011, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Keegan, D., Kretschmer, B. (2012). Cascading use: a systematic approach to biomass 

beyond the energy sector. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:193-206.  

Langeveld, H., Quist-Wessel, F., Dimitriou, I., Aronsson, P., Baum, C., Schulz, U. et al. 
(2012).  Assessing  Environmental  Impacts  of  Short  Rotation  Coppice  (SRC) 
Expansion:  Model  Definition  and  Preliminary  Results.  BioEnergy  Research,  5:621–
635.  

Latta,  G.  S.,  Baker,  J.  S.,  Beach,  R.  H.,  Rose,  S.  K.,  McCarl,  B.  A.  (2013).  A  multi-
sector  intertemporal  optimization  approach  to  assess  the  5GHG6  implications  of 
U.S.  forest  and  agricultural  biomass  electricity  expansion.  Journal  of  Forest 
Economics 19: 361–383. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2013.05.003. 

Leemans,  R.,  van  Amstel,  A.,  Battjes,  C.,  Kreileman,  E.,  Toet,  S.  (1996).  The  land 
cover  and  carbon  cycle  consequences  of  large-scale  utilizations  of  biomass  as  an 
energy source. Global Environmental Change 6: 335-357. 

Mantau, U. (2012). Wood flows in Europe (EU27). A presentation for European paper 
http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/epw-

Available 

online 

week. 

at: 

September 2014  44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

presentations/2012/cascadinguseofwood/Prof%20Mantau%20-
121115%20CEPI%20Flow%20Chart%20v6.0.pdf [27 July 2014] 

Mantau,  U.,  Saal,  U.,  Prins,  K.,  Lindner,  M.,  Verkerk,  H.,  Eggers,  J.,  Leek,  N., 
Oldenburger,  J.,  Asikainen,  A.,  Anttila,  P.  (2010).  EUwood  -  Methodology  report. 
Hamburg, Germany,  

Marland,  G.,  B.  Schlamadinger  (1997).  Forests  for  carbon  sequestration  or  fossil  fuel 

substitution? A sensitivity analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy 13: 389-397. 

Matthews,  R.,  Sokka,  L.,  Soimakallio,  S.,  Mortimer,  N.,  Rix,  J.,  Schelhaas,  M.-J., 
Jenkins,  T.,  Hogan,  G.,  Mackie,  E.,  Morris,  A.,  Randle,  T.  (2014a).  Review  of 
literature  on  biogenic  carbon  and  life  cycle  assessment  of  forest  bioenergy.  Final 
Task  1  report,  EU  DG  ENER  project  ENER/C1/427,  ‘Carbon  impacts  of  biomass 
consumed in the EU’ . Forest Research: Farnham. 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/2014_biomass_forest_resea
rch_report_.pdf 

Matthews,  R.,  Mortimer,  N.,  Mackie,  E.,  Evans,  A.,  Mwabonje,  O.,  Randle,  T.,  Rolls, 
W.,  Sayce,  M.,  Tubby,  I.  (2014b).  Carbon  impacts  of  using  biomass  in  bioenergy 
and  other  sectors:  forests  Final  report  (Parts  a  and  b).  Report  URN  12D/085.  The 
Research Agency of the Forestry Commission. 

Moffat  A,  Nisbet  T,  Nicoll  B  (2011).  Environmental  effects  of  stump  and  root 
Forestry  Commission.  Available  online  at: 
[3  September 

harvesting.  Reserch  Note, 
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN009.pdf/$FILE/FCRN009.pdf 
2014]. 

Müller J, Bütler R (2010). A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for 
management  recommendations  in  European  forests.  European  Journal  of  Forest 
Research 129: 981-992. 

Odegard, I., Croezen, H., and Bergsma, G. (2012). Cascading of biomass. 13 solutions 
for  a  sustainable  bio-based  economy.  Delft,  CE  Delft.  Available  online  at: 
http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/cascading_of_biomass%3Cbr%3E13_solutions_for
_a_sustainable_bio-based_economy/1277 [25 July 2014] 

OEKO  (Öko-Institut),  IFEU  (Institut 

für  Energie-  und  Umweltforschung),  CI 
(Copernicus  Institute)  (2010).  Bioenergy  Environmental  Impact  Analysis  (BIAS): 
Analytical Framework. FAO, Rome. 

Rivela,  B.,  Moreira,  M.T.,  Muñoz,  I.,  Rieradevall  J.,  Feijoo  G.  (2006).  Life  cycle 
assessment of wood wastes: A case study of ephemeral architecture. Science of the 
total environment 357: 1-11. 

Sathre,  R.,  Gustavsson,  L.  (2006).  Energy  and  carbon  balances  of  wood  cascade 

chains. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47:332-355. 

Searchinger,  T.,  Heimlich,  R.,  Houghton,  R.  A.,  Dong,  F.,  Elobeid,  A.,  Fabiosa,  J., 
Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., Yu, T. H. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases 
greenhouse  gases  through  emissions  from  land-use  change.  Science  319:  1238-
1240. 

September 2014  45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K.-H. H., Lauk, C., Harper, R. et al. (2013). How 
much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising 
food security and environmental goals? Global Change Biology, 19: 2285–2302.  

Sirkin, T., ten Houten, M. (1994). The cascade chain: a theory and tool for achieving 
resource sustainability with applications for product design. Resource, Conservation 
and Recycling 10: 213-276.  

Turbé, A., De Toni, A., Benito, P., Lavelle, P., Lavelle, P., Ruiz, N., van der Putten, W. 
H.,  Labouze,  E.,  Mudgal,  S.  (2010).  Soil  biodiversity:  functions,  threats  and  tools 
for  policy  makers.  Bio  Intelligence  Service,  IRD,  and  NIOO,  Report  for  European 
Commission (DG Environment).  

UN  (United  Nations)  (2012).  The  Millennium  Development  Goals  Report  2012.  New 

York. 

UNEP  (United  Nations  Environmental  Program)  (2014).  Assessing  Global  Land  Use: 
Balancing Consumption with Sustainable Supply. A Report of the Working Group on 
Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel. Bringezu S., Schütz H., Pengue 
W., O´Brien M., Garcia F., Sims R., Howarth R., Kauppi L., Swilling M., and Herrick 
J. 

Vanhala,  P.,  Repo,  A.,  Liski,  J.  (2013).  Forest  bioenergy  at  the  cost  of  carbon 
sequestration?  Current  Opinion in  Environmental  Sustainability.  Current  Opinion in 
Environmental Sustainability 5: 41-46. 

Verkerk,  P.  J.,  Lindner,  M.,  Zanchi,  G.,  Zudin,  S.  (2011).  Assessing  impacts  of 
intensified biomass removal on deadwood in European forests. Ecological Indicators 
11: 27–35. 

WOCAT  (World  Overview  of  Conservation  Approaches  and  Technologies)  (2007). 
Where  the  land  is  greener  –  case  studies  and  analysis  of  soil  and  water 
conservation initiatives worldwide. Editors: Liniger, H. and Critchley, W. Centre for 
Development and Environment (CDE), Bern. 

WWAP  (United  Nations  World  Water  Assessment  Programme)  (2014).  The  United 
Nations World Water Development Report 2014: Water and Energy. UNESCO, Paris. 

Zanchi,  G.,  Pena,  N.,  Bird,  N.  (2012).  Is  woody  bioenergy  carbon  neutral?  A 
comparative  assessment  of  emissions  from  consumption  of  woody  bioenergy  and 
fossil fuel. GCB Bioenergy, 4:761–772. 

September 2014  46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

10.2.  Further  references  considered  in  the  pre-selection  of  the 

literature review 

Anderson-Teixeira, K J, Davis, S C, Masters, M D and Delucia, E H (2009). Changes in 

soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. GCB Bioenergy 1:75–96. 

AEBIOM (2013). European Bioenergy Outlook 2013. 

Beringer, T. I. M., Wolfgang Lucht, and Sibyll Schaphoff (2011). "Bioenergy production 
potential  of  global  biomass  plantations  under  environmental  and  agricultural 
constraints." Gcb Bioenergy 3.4: 299-312. 

Berndes,  G.  (2002).  Bioenergy  and  water  -  The  implications  of  large-scale  bioenergy 
production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change, 12: 253–271. 

Berndes, G., Azar, C., Kaberger, T., & Abrahamson, D. (2001). The feasibility of large-
scale lignocellulose-based bioenergy production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 20: 371–
383. 

Biomass  Energy  Centre  (2011).  Miscanthus.  Biomass  Energy  Centre  webpage: 
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,18204&_dad=po
rtal&_schema=PORTAL [3 September 2014] 

Biomass  Energy  Centre  (2011).  Poplar  short  rotation  coppice  (SRC).  Biomass  Energy 

Centre webpage:   
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,18113&_dad=po
rtal&_schema=PORTAL [3 September 2014] 

Biomass  Energy  Centre  (2011).  Willow  short  rotation  coppice  (SRC).  Biomass  Energy 

Centre webpage:   
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,18112&_dad=po
rtal&_schema=PORTAL [3 September 2014] 

Birdlife  International  (2011).  Meeting  Europe's  renewable  energy  targets  in  harmony 

with nature. The RSPB, Sandy, UK. 

Borjesson, P., Börjesson, P. (1999). Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in 
Sweden - I: Identification and quantification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 16: 137–154. 

Böttcher, H., Verkerk, P. J., Gusti, M., Havlik, P., & Grassi, G. (2012). Projection of the 
future  EU  forest  CO2  sink  as  affected  by  recent  bioenergy  policies  using  two 
advanced  forest  management  models.  GCB  Bioenergy,  1–11.  doi:10.1111/j.1757-
1707.2011.01152.x 

Bowyer,  C,  Baldock,  D,  Kretschmer,  B  and  Polakova,  J  (2012).  The  GHG  emissions 
intensity  of  bioenergy:  Does  bioenergy  have  a  role  to  play  in  reducing  GHG 
emissions  of  Europe’s  economy?  Institute  for  European  Environmental  Policy 
(IEEP): London. 

Brander,  M.,  Hutchison,  C.,  Sherrington,  C.,  Ballinger,  A.,  Beswick,  C.,  Baddeley,  A., 
Black,  M.,  Woods,  J.,  Murphy,  R.  (2009)  Methodology  and  Evidence  Base  on  the 
Indirect  Greenhouse  Gas  Effects  of  Using  Wastes,  Residues,  and  By-products  for 
Biofuels and Bioenergy. Econometrica, Eunomia and Imperial College London.  

September 2014  47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Bringezu,  S.,  Ramesohl,  S.,  Arnold,  K.,  Fischedick,  M.,  von  Geibler,  J.,  Liedtke,  C., 
Schütz,  H.  (2007).  What  we  know  and  what  we  should  know  –  towards  a 
sustainable  biomass  strategy.  Wuppertal  Institute  for  Climate,  Environment  and 
Energy, Discussion paper no 163, Wuppertal. 

Budsberg,  E.,  Rastogri,  M.,  Puettmann,  M.  E.,  Caputo,  J.,  Balogh,  S.,  Volk,  T.  A., 
Gustafson,  R.,  Johnson,  L.  (2012).  Lifecycle  Assessment  for  the  Production  of 
Bioethanol from Willow Biomass Crops via Biochemical Conversion. Forest Products 
Journal 62: 305-313. 

Cannell,  M.  G.  R.  (1999).  Environmental  impacts  of  forest  monocultures:  water  use, 
acidification, wildlife conservation, and carbon storage. New Forests, 17: 239–262. 

Carus,  M.,  Raschka,  A.,  Fehrenbach,  H.,  Rettenmaier,  N.,  Dammer,  L.,  Köppen,  S., 
Thöne, M., Dobroschke, S., Diekmann, L., Hermann, A., Hennenberg, K., Essel, R., 
Piotrowski, S., Detzel, S, Keller, H., Kauertz, B., Gärtner, S., Reinhardt, J. (2014). 
Environmental  Innovation  Policy  –  Greater  resource  efficiency  and  climate 
protection  through  the  sustainable  material  use  of  biomass.  TEXTE  03/2014, 
Umweltbundesamt (Germany), Dessau-Roßlau. 

CEN/TC  383  -  Sustainably  produced  biomass  for  energy  applications.  Unpublished 

documents. 

Ceotto,  E.  (2008).  Grasslands  for  bioenergy  production.  A  review.  Agronomy  for 

Sustainable Development, 28: 47–55. 

Chen,  C.  R.  and  Xu,  Z.  H.  (2005).  Soil  carbon  and  nitrogen  pools  and  microbial 
properties in a 6-year-old slash pine plantation of subtropical Australia: impacts of 
harvest residue management. Forest Ecology and Management 206: 237-247.  

Cherubini,  F,  Bird,  N  D,  Cowie,  A,  Jungmeier,  G,  Schlamadinger,  B  and  Woess-
Gallasch,  S  (2009).  Energy-  and  greenhouse  gas-based  LCA  of  biofuel  and 
bioenergy  systems:  Key 
issues,  ranges  and  recommendations.  Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling 53: 434-447.  

Cherubini,  F.,  Ulgiati,  S.  (2010).  Crop  residues  as  raw  materials  for  biorefinery 

systems - A LCA case study. Applied Energy, 87: 47–57 

Chum, H., Faaij, A., Moreira, J., Berndes, G., Dhamija, P., Dong, H.,  … Ribeiro, S. K. 
(2012). Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of 
the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change.  Bioenergy.  (O.  Edenhofer,  R.  P. 
Madruga,  Y.  Sokona,  Eds.)  Choice  Reviews  Online  (Vol.  49,  pp.  209–231). 
doi:10.5860/CHOICE.49-6309 

Clifton-Brown, J. C., Breuer, J., Jones, M. B. (2007). Carbon mitigation by the energy 

crops, Miscanthus. Global Change Biology 11: 2296-2307. 

ECN  (Energy  Research  Centre  of  the  Netherlands),  Copernicus  Institute,  Forest  & 
Landscape  Denmark,  COWI  A/S,  ControlUnion  Certifications  (20099.  Technical 
assistance  for  an  evaluation  of  international  schemes  to  promote  biomass 
Brussels. 
sustainability 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/2010_02_25_report_interna
tional_schemes.pdf  

(prepared 

TREN), 

DG 

for 

September 2014  48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

DBFZ  (Deutsche  Biomasseforschungszentrum),  Oeko-Institut  (2011).  Environmental 
impacts  of  the  use  of  agricultural  residues  for  advanced  biofuel  production, 
commissioned by WWF; unpublished.  

DECC  (Department  of  Energy  &  Climate  Change)  and  Defra  (Department  for 
Environment,  Food  and  Rural  Affairs)  (2011)  Anaerobic  Digestion  Strategy  and 
Action  Plan  -  A  commitment  to  increasing  energy  from  waste  through  Anaerobic 
Digestion. DECC and Defra, London, UK.  

Delzeit,  R.  (2011).  Modelling  Regional  Maize  Markets  for  Biogas  Production  in 
Germany:  The  Impact  of  Different  Policy  Options  on  Environment  and  Transport 
Emissions.  Doctoral  dissertation  prepared  at  the  Institute  for  Food  and  Resource 
Economics at the University of Bonn submitted on 21 July 2010, http://hss.ulb.uni-
bonn.de/2011/2390/2390.pdf.  

Delzeit,  R,  Holm-Müller,  K  and  Britz,  W  (2011).  Ökonomische  Bewertung  des 
Erneuerbare  Energien  Gesetzes  zur  Förderung  von  Biogas.  Kiel  Working  Paper  No. 
1682, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel.  

Diaz-Chavez,  R,  Kunen,  E,  Walden,  D,  Fingerman,  K,  Arya,  L,  Kretschmer,  B, 
Poláková,  J,  Farmer,  A,  Bowyer,  C,  Menadue,  H,  Alberici,  S  and  Toop,  G  (2013). 
Mandatory requirements in relation to air, soil, or water protection: analysis of need 
and  feasibility.  Report  by  Winrock,  IEEP  and  Ecofys  for  the  European  Commission 
(DG ENER) under the contract ENER/C1/2010-431.  

Don, A., Schumacher, J., Freibauer, A. (2011). Impact of tropical land-use change on 
soil  organic  carbon  stocks  -  a  meta-analysis.  Global  Change  Biology,  17:  1658–
1670. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02336.x 

Donnelly  A.,  Styles  D.,  Fitzgerald  J.B.,  Finnan  J.  (2011)  A  proposed  framework  for 
determining  the  environmental  impact  of  replacing  agricultural  grassland  with 
Miscanthus in Ireland. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 3: 247-263.  

Dornburg,  V.,  Faaij,  A.,  Verweij,  P.,  Wester,  F.,  Langeveld,  H.,  Ven,  G.  van  de,  … 
Editors.  (2012).  Biomass  Assessment  -  Assessment  of  global  biomass  potentials 
and  their  links  to  food  ,  water  ,  biodiversity  ,  energy  demand  and  economy.  Main 
report (p. 108). 

Dornburg, V., van Dam, J., Faaij, A., & Dam, J. Van. (2007). Estimating GHG emission 
mitigation  supply  curves  of  large-scale  biomass  use  on  a  country  level.  Biomass 
and Bioenergy, 31: 46–65. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.04.006 

Dowell,  R  C,  Gibbins,  D,  Rhoads,  J  L  and  Pallardy,  S  G  (2009).  Biomass  production 
physiology  and  soil  carbon  dynamics  in  short  rotation  grown  populus  deltoids  and 
p.deltoids, p. nigra hybrids. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 134–142. 

Ecofys (2010). Evaluation of improvements in end-conversion efficiency for bioenergy 

production. Final report. Study commissioned by the EU Commission, Brussels. 

EDF  (Environmental  Defense  Fund)  and  Pinchot  Institute  for  Conservation  (2012). 
Pathways  to  Sustainability.  An  Evaluation  of  Forestry  Programs  to  Meet  European 
Biomass Supply Chain Requirements. 

Edwards, R. A. H, Šúri, M., Huld, T. A., Dallemand, J. F. (2008) GIS-Based assessment 

of cereal straw energy resource in the Europe Union. JRC-Ispra, Varese, Italy.   

September 2014  49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Edwards,  R.,  Šúri,  M.,  Huld,  T.,  Dallemand  J.  F.  (2005).  GIS-Based  Assessment  of 
Cereal  Straw  Energy  Resource  in  the  European  Union.  Proceedings  of  the  14th 
European  Biomass  Conference  &  Exhibition.  Biomass  for  Energy,  Industry  and 
Climate Protection, 17.-21. October 2005, Paris.  

EEA  (European  Environment  Agency)  (2006).  How  much  bioenergy  can  Europe 
produce without harming the environment? (p. 72).European Environment Agency. 
EEA Report No 7/2006. Copenhagen. 

EEA. (European Environment Agency) (2007). Environmentally compatible bio-energy 
potential  from  European  forests  (p.  138).European  Environment  Agency  (EEA). 
Copenhagen. 

EEA  (European  Environment  Agency)  (2010).  The  European  Environment.  State  and 

Outlook 2010, Biodiversity. EEA: Copenhagen.  

EEA  (European  Environmental  Agency)  (2013b).  EU  bioenergy  potential  from  a 

resource efficiency perspective; Copengagen. 

Eggers,  J.,  Tröltzsch,  K.,  Falcucci,  A.,  Maiorano,  L.,  Verburg,  P.  H.,  Framstad,  E.,  … 
International,  W.  (2009).  Is  biofuel  policy  harming  biodiversity  in  Europe?  GCB 
Bioenergy, 1: 18–34. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01002.x 

Eickhout,  B.,  Born,  G.  J.  van  den,  Notenboom,  J.,  Oorschot,  M.  van,  Ros,  J.  P.  M., 
Vuuren,  D.  P.  van,  Westhoek,  H.  J.  (2008).  Local  and  global  consequences  of  the 
EU renewable directive for biofuels. MNP Report 500143001 / 2008. Retrieved from 
http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500143001.pdf 

Elbersen,  B.,  Startisky,  I.,  Hengeveld,  G.,  Schelhaas,  M.-J.,  Naeff,  H.,  Böttcher,  H. 
(2012).  Atlas  of  EU  biomass  potentials.  Deliverable  3.3:  Spatially  detailed  and 
quantified  overview  of  EU  biomass  potential  taking  into  account  the  main  criteria 
determining biomass availability from different sources.  

Elbersen,  H.  W.  (Ed.)  (2001).  Switchgrass  (Panicum  virgatum  L.)  as  an  alternative 
energy  crop  in  Europe.  Initiation  of  a  productivity  network.  Final  Report  for  the 
period from 01-04-1998 to 30-09-2001. FAIR 5-CT97-3701.  

Energy  Poplar  (undated)  Project  supported  under  the  Commission’s  7th  Framework 

Programme. Available online at:  
http://www.energypoplar.eu/publications.php?cat=2 [3 September 2014] 

European  Climate  Foundation,  Sveaskog,  Södra,  Vattenfall  (2010).  Biomass  for  heat 
at: 
[3 

and 
http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/Biomass_report_-_Final.pdf 
September 2014]   

–  Opportunity 

economics. 

Available 

power 

online 

and 

FAO  (Food  and  Agricultural  Organization  of  the  United  Nations)  (2011)  Global  food 

losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. FAO, Rome, Italy.   

FAO  (Food  and  Agricultural  Organization  of  the  United  Nations)  (2010).  Criteria  and 

indicators for sustainable woodfuels. FAO, Rome. 

Fehrenbach, H., Giegrich, J., Reinhardt, G., Schmitz, J., Sayer, U., Gretz, M., … Sayer, 
D.  U.  (2008).  Criteria  for  a  sustainable  use  of  bioenergy  on  a  global  scale.  Texte: 

September 2014  50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Research  Report  (p.  130  +  110  ann.).Germany:  Umweltbundesamt,  Dessau-
Roßlau. 

FERN,  Friends  of  the  Earth  Czech  Republic  (2012).  Degrading  ecosystems  to  prevent 
climate  change.  Can  Czech  forests  and  soils  survive  the  dash  for  biomass? 
Download: 
http://www.fern.org/publications/reports/degrading-ecosystems-
prevent-climate-change-can-czech-forests-and-soils-survive  

Fisher  J.,  Jackson,  S.,  Biewald,  B.  (2012).  The  Carbon  Footprint  of  Electricity  from 
Biomass: A Review of the Current State of Science and Policy. Report for Synapse 
Energy Economics Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.  

Forest Research and North Energy [Forest Research] (2012). Carbon impacts of using 
biomass  in  bioenergy  and  other  sectors:  forests.  A  report  for  DECC  -  project  TRN 
242/08/2011 published in support of the UK bioenergy strategy.  

Forestry  Commission  England  (2010).  ‘Wood  Fuel  Development  Guidance’.  Forestry 
at: 

Commission 
http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/6307/Wood-Fuel-Development-Guidance-Forestry-
Commission-2010.pdf   

Available 

England, 

online 

Issue 

03. 

Frank, S., Böttcher, H., Havlik, P., Valin, H., Mosnier, A., Obersteiner, M., … Elbersen, 
B. (2012). How effective are the sustainability criteria accompanying the European 
targets?  GCB  Bioenergy,  1–9.  doi:10.1111/j.1757-
Union  2020  biofuel 
1707.2012.01188.x 

Franke,  B.  (Ed.).  2013.  Global  Assessments  and  Guidelines  for  Sustainable  Liquid 

Biofuels. A GEF Targeted Research Project. Heidelberg.  

Fritsche,  U.  R.,  Iriarte,  L.  (Eds.)  2013:  Sustainability  Criteria  and  Indicators  for  Solid 

Bioenergy from Forests. Workshop Paper. 
http://www.iinas.org/tl_files/iinas/downloads/Joint_WS_Outcome_Paper_2012.pdf  

FSC  (Forest  Stewardship  Council)  (2012).  FSC  International  Standard.  FSC  Principles 

and Criteria for Forest Stewardship; FSC-STD-01-001 (version 5-0) EN 

Fuller,  R  J,  Noble,  D  G,  Smith,  K  W  and  Vanhinsbergh,  D  (2005).  Recent  declines  in 
populations of woodland birds in Britain: a review of possible causes, British Birds, 
98: 116–143.  

Gálos,  B.,  Hagemann,  S.  Hänsler,  A.,  Kindermann,  G.,  Rechid,  D.,  Sieck,  K., 
Teichmann,  C.  Jacob,  D.  (2013)  Case  study  for  the  assessment  of  the 
biogeophysical  effects  of  a  potential  afforestation  in  Europe.  Carbon  balance  and 
management 8: 3. 

Gobin, A., Campling, P., Janssen, L., Desmet, N., van Delden, H., Hurkens, J., Lavelle, 
P.,  Berman,  S.  (2011).  Soil  organic  matter  management  across  the  EU  –  best 
practices, constraints and trad-offs. Final Report for the European Commission’s DG 
Environment.  

Gurnell,  J.,  Hicks,  M.  and  Whitbread,  S.  (1992).  The  effects  of  coppice  management 
on  small  mammal  populations,  in  Buckley,  G  P  (ed)  Ecology  and  management  of 
coppice woodlands, Chapman & Hall, London, pp213–232 

September 2014  51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Haughton, A. J., Bond, A. J., Lovett, A. A., Dockerty, T., Sünnenberg, G., Clark, S. J., 
Bohan, D. A., … Karp, A. (2009). A novel, integrated approach to assessing social, 
economic and environmental implications of changing rural land-use: A case study 
of perennial biomass crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 315-322. 

Havlík,  P.,  Schneider,  U.  A.,  Schmid,  E.,  Bottcher,  H.,  Fritz,  S.,  Skalsky,  R.,  … 
Obersteiner, M. (2011)  Global land-use implications of  first and second generation 
biofuel targets Energy Policy, 39:5690-5702  

Hazlett,  P.  W.,  Gordon,  A.  M.,  Voroney,  R.  P.,  Sibley,  P.  K.  (2007).  Impact  of 
harvesting and logging slash on nitrogen and carbon dynamics in soils from upland 
spruce forests in northeastern Ontario. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 39: 43–57. 

Helmisaari.  H.-S.,  Vanguelova,  E.  [Eds]  (2012).  Proceedings  of  the  OECD  Workshop 
W6.1 Forest bioenergy and soil sustainability at EUROSOIL Congress 2nd July to 6th 
July 2012, Bari, Italy.  

Hennenberg, K., Wiegmann,, K. Herrera, R., Hünecke, K, Fritsche, U. R., Timpe, C. … 
Krismamm,  A.  (in  press)  Umsetzung  der  Biodiversitätsziele  bei  der  nachhaltigen 
Bioenergienutzung. Abschlussbericht BfN-Projekt. 

Hiederer, R, Michéli, E, Durrant, T (2011). Evaluation of BioSoil Demonstration Project 
– Soil Data Analysis. EUR 24729 EN. ISBN 978‐92‐79‐19320‐0; DOI:10.2788/56105 

Hinge, J. (2009). Elaboration of a platform for increasing straw combustion in Sweden 
based on Danish experiences. Danish Technological Institute; Project No.: E06e641. 
Sponsored by Värmeforsk.  

Hoekstra,  A.  Y.,  Chapagain,  A.  K.  (2007).  Water  footprints  of  nations:  Water  use  by 
people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resour Manage 21: 35-48.  

Hosonuma,  N.,  Herold,  M.,  De  Sy,  V.,  De  Fries,  R.  S.,  Brockhaus,  M.,  Verchot,  L., 
Angelsen,  A.,  Romijn,  E.  (2012)  An  assessment  of  deforestation  and  forest 
degradation  drivers  in  developing  countries.  Environmental  Research  Letters  7.4: 
044009. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009 

ISO (International Standardization Organization ) undated. TC 248 Project committee: 

Sustainability criteria for bioenergy (under prepatation).  

IWPB  (Initiative  Wood  Pellets  Buyers)  (2012).  Report  n°1.  Proposal  for  Sustainability 
for  Woody  Biomass  Sourcing  and  Trading.  Working  Group  on 

Principles 
Sustainability, Version after Joint meeting Schipol, 5 June 2012. 

Jacobson,  S.,  Kukkola,  M.,  Malkonen,  E.,  Tveite,  B.  (2000).  Impact  of  whole  tree 
harvesting and compensatory fertilization on growth  of  coniferous thinning stands. 
Forest Ecology and Management 129: 41-51 

Jandl,  R.,  Lindner,  M.,  Vesterdal,  L.,  Bauwens,  B.,  Baritz,  R.,  Hagedorn,  F.,  …  Byrne, 
K.  A.  (2007).  How  strongly  can  forest  management  influence  soil  carbon 
sequestration? Geoderma 137: 253–268. 

Jones,  A.,  Panagos,  P.,  Barcelo,  S.  et  al.  (2012).  The  State  of  Soil  in  Europe.  A 
contribution  of  the  JRC  to  the  European  Environment  Agency’s  Environment  State 

September 2014  52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

and  Outlook  Report  –  SOER  2010.  Report  EUR  25186  EN,  European  Commission 
Joint Research Centre, Ispra.  

Jonsell,  M.  (2007).  Effects  on  biodiversity  of  forest  fuel  harvesting,  governed  by 

processes working on large scale. Biomass and Bioenergy 31: 726-731 

Jørgensen,  U.  (2011).  Benefits  versus  risks  of  growing  biofuel  crops:  the  case  of 

Miscanthus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 

JRC  (Joint  Research  Centre  Institute  for  Environment  and  Sustainability)  and  CENER 
(National Renewable Energy Centre of Spain) (2007). Cereals Straw Resources for 
bioenergy  in  the  European  Union.  Proceedings  of  the  Expert  Consultation  “Cereals 
Straw  Resources  for  Bioenergy  in  the  European  Union”,  EUR  22626  2007,  JRC, 
Ispra. 

Karp,  A.,  Haughton,  A.  J.,  Bohan,  D.  A.,  Lovett,  A.  A.,  Bond,  A.  J.,  Dockerty,  T., 
Sünnenberg, G., Finch, J. W., Sage, R. B., Appleton, K. J., Riche, a. B., Mallott, M. 
D., Mallott, V. E., Cunningham, M. D., Clark, S. J., Turner, M. M. (2009). Perennial 
energy crops: Implications and potential. In: Winter and Lobley [eds] What is land 
for? : the food, fuel and climate change debate. USA: Earthscan. pp. 47. 

Keegan,  D.,  Kretschmer,  B.,  Elbersen,  B.,  Panoutsou,  C.  (2013).  Cascading  use:  A 
systematic  approach  to  biomass  beyond  the  energy  sector.  Biofuels,  Bioproducts 
and Biorefining, 7: 193–206. doi:10.1002/bbb.1351 

Kort,  J.,  Collins,  M.,  Ditsch,  D.  (1998).  A  review  of  soil  erosion  potential  associated 

with biomass crops. Biomass and Bioenergy, 14: 351–359. 

Kretschmer,  B.,  Allen,  B.,  Hart,  K.  (2012).  Mobilising  Cereal  Straw  in  the  EU  to  feed 
advanced  biofuel  production.  Institute  for  European  Environmental  Policy  (IEEP), 
London. 

Kretschmer, B. Watkins, E., Baldock, D., Allen, B. Keenleyside, C., Tucker, G. (2011). 
Securing biomass for energy  – developing an environmentally responsible industry 
for  the  UK  now  and  into  the  future,  Report  for  RSPB,  Friends  of  the  Earth  UK, 
Greenpeace  UK  and  the  Woodland  Trust.  Institute  for  European  Environmental 
Policy (IEEP), London.  

Krotscheck, C., König, F., Obernberger, I. (2000). Ecological assessment of integrated 
bioenergy  systems  using  the  Sustainable  Process  Index.  Biomass  and  Bioenergy, 
18: 341–368. 

Lala, P., Alavalapatib, J. R. R., Marinescuc, M., Rao Mattad, J., Dwivedie, P., Susaetaf, 
A.  (2011).  Developing  Sustainability  Indicators  for  Woody  Biomass  Harvesting  in 
the United States; in: Journal of Sustainable Forestry 30: 736-755 

Lattimore, B., Smith, C. T., Titus, B. D., Stupak, I., Egnell, G. (2009). Environmental 
factors  in  woodfuel  production:  Opportunities,  risks,  and  criteria  and  indicators  for 
sustainable practices. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33: 1321–1342. 

Laudon, Hjalmar Laudon, H., Sponseller, R. A., Lucas, R. W., Futter, M. N., Egnell, G., 
Bishop,  K.,  Ågren,  A.,  Ring,  E.,  Högberg,  P.  (2011).  Consequences  of  more 
intensive  forestry  for  the  sustainable  management  of  forest  soils  and  waters. 
Forests 2: 243-260. 

September 2014  53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Liebig, M. A., Schmer, M. R., Vogel, K. P., Mitchell, R. B. (2008). Soil carbon storage 

by switchgrass grown for bioenergy. Bioenergy Research 1: 215-222. 

Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Beringer, T., Müller, C., Bondeau, A., Rost, S., Lucht, W. 
(2010).  Scenarios  of  global  bioenergy  production:  The  trade-offs  between 
agricultural  expansion,  intensification  and  trade.  Ecological  Modelling,  221:  2188–
2196. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.10.002 

Malins, C., Searle, S., Baral, A., Turley, D., Biobased Feedstocks, Hopwood, L. (2013). 
Wasted - Europe's Untapped Resource. An Assessment of Advanced Biofuels. ICCT 
http://europeanclimate.org/wp-
and 
content/uploads/2014/02/WASTED-final.pdf [3. September 2014]  

Available 

NNFCC. 

online 

at: 

Manomet  Center  for  Conservation  Sciences  (Manomet)  (2010).  Massachusetts 
Biomass  Sustainability  and  Carbon  Policy  Study,  Report  to  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachussetts  Department  of  Energy  Resources.  Walker,  T  (Ed),  Contributors: 
Cardellichio, P, Colnes, A, Gunn, J, Kittler, B, Perschel, R, Recchia, C, Saah, D, and 
Walker, T. Natural Capital Initiative Report NCI-2010-03. Brunswick, Maine.  

Mantau,  U.,  Saal,  U.,  Prins,  K.,  Steierer,  F.,  Lindner,  M.,  Verkerk,  H.,  …  Anttila,  P. 
(2010).  EUwood  -  Real  potential  for  changes  in  growth  and  use  of  EU  forests  (p. 
160). 
from 
Germany. 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/doc/bioenergy/euwood_final_report
.pdf  

Hamburg, 

Retrieved 

Martikainen,  A.,  van  Dam,  J.,  Alakangas,  E.,  Pierete,  N.,  …  von  Rothmer,  P.  (2010). 
Different criteria for sustainability and certification of biomass and solid, liquid and 
gaseous  biofuels  -  D.4.4.2.  Solutions  for  biomass  fuel  market  barriers  and  raw 
material availability - IEE/07/777/SI2.499477. EUBIONET III, Finland. 

McKechnie,  J.,  Colombo,  S.,  Chen,  J.,  Mabee,  W.,  MacLean,  H.  L.  (2010).  Forest 
Bioenergy  or  Forest  Carbon?  Assessing  Trade-Offs  in  Greenhouse  Gas  Mitigation 
with  Wood-Based  Fuels.  Environmental  Science  and  Technology,  45:  789–795. 
doi:10.1021/es1024004 

MCPFE  (Ministerial  Conference  on  the  Protection  of  Forests  in  Europe),  EC  (European 
Comission),  UNECE  (United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe),  FAO  (Food 
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2010): Good practice guidance 
on 
Europe. 
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/publications/oes/Timber_wood-mobilization-
good_practice-guidance.pdf   

mobilisation 

sustainable 

wood 

the 

of 

in 

Mead,  D.  J.  (2005).  Opportunities  for  improving  plantation  productivity.  How  much? 
realistic?  Biomass  and  Bioenergy,  28:  249–266. 

How  quickly?  How 
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.08.007 

Melville, N. (2010). Developing Reed as a Wetland Product in the Humberhead Levels. 

RPSB, July 2010 

Moriarty,  P.,  &  Honnery,  D.  (2007).  Global  bioenergy:  Problems  and  prospects. 

International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 27(2), 231–249. 

Mosnier,  A.,  Havlík,  P.,  Obersteiner,  M.,  Aoki,  K.,  Schmid,  E.,  Fritz,  S.,  McCallum,  I., 
Leduc,  S.  (2014).  Modeling  Impact  of  Development  Trajectories  and  a  Global 

September 2014  54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Agreement  on  Reducing  Emissions  from  Deforestation  on  Congo  Basin  Forests  by 
2030. Environmental and Resource Economics 57: 505-525.  

Mosnier,  A.,  Havlík,  P.,  Valin,  H.,  Baker,  J.,  Murray,  B.,  Feng,  S.,  Obersteiner,  M., 
McCarl,  B.,  Rose,  S.,  Schneider,  U.  (2013).  Alternative  U.S.  biofuel  mandates  and 
global  GHG  emissions:  The  role  of  land  use  change,  crop  management  and  yield 
growth. Energy Policy 57: 602-614 

Mroz, G. D., Jurgensen, M. F., Frederick, D. J. (1985). Soil Nutrient Changes Following 
Whole Tree Harvesting on Three Northern USA Hardwood Sites. Soil Science Society 
of America Journal, 49: 1552–1557. 

Muller,  A.  (2009).  Sustainable  agriculture  and  the  production  of  biomass  for  energy 

use. Climatic Change 94: 319-331. 

Navarro,  L.  M.,  Pereira,  H.  M.  (2012).  Rewilding  abandoned  landscapes  in  Europe. 

Ecosystems 15: 900-912.  

Peckham,  S.  D.,  Gower,  S.  T.,    Buongiorno,  J.  (2012).  Estimating  the  carbon  budget 
and  maximizing  future  carbon  uptake  for  a  temperate  forest  region  in  the  US. 
Carbon balance and management 7: 6. 

PEFC (Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) (2010). Sustainable Forest 

Management – Requirements. PEFC ST 1003:2010 

PfI  (Partners  for  Innovation  BV)  (2011).  Sustainability  requirements  for  biofuels  and 
biomass for energy in EU and US regulatory frameworks; prepared for NL Agency; 
Amsterdam 

Pfister,  S.,  Hellweg,  S.  (2009).  The  water  “shoesize”  vs.  footprint  of  bioenergy. 
Proceedings  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
106(35):E93-E94.  

Pfister, S., Bayer, P., Koehler, A., Hellweg, S. (2011). Environmental impacts of water 
use in global crop production: Hotspots and trade-offs with land use. Environmental 
Science and Technology, 45: 5761–5768. 

Poudel,  Bishnu  Chandra,  et  al.  (2012).  Potential  effects  of  intensive  forestry  on 
in  north-central  Sweden. 
total  carbon  balance 

biomass  production  and 
Environmental Science & Policy 15.1: 106-124. 

Proenca,  V.,  Pereira,  H.  M.  (2010).  Appendix  2:  Mediterranean  forest.  In:  Leadley  P, 
Pereira  HM,  Alkemade  R,  Fernandez-Manjarres  JF,  Proenca  V,  Scharlemann  JPW, 
Walpole MJ (Eds) Biodiversity scenarios: projections of the 21st century change in 
biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. CBD technical series no 50, 60–67.  

Raulund-Rasmussen, K., De Jong, J., Humphrey, J.W., Smith M., Ravn, H.P., 
Katzensteiner, K., Klimo, E., Szukics, U., Delaney, C., Hansen, K., Stupak, I., Ring, E., 
Gundersen,  P.,  Loustau,  D.  (2011).  Papers  on  impacts  of  forest  management  on 

environmental services. EFI Technical Report 57, 2011, 56-89.  

Raulund-Rasmussen,  K.,  Hansen,  K.,  Katzensteiner,  K.,  Loustau,  D.,  de  Jong,  J., 
Gundersen, P., Humphrey, J. W., Ravn, H. P., Klimo, E. (2011). Synthesis report on 
impact of forest management on environmental services. European Forest Institute 
Technical report 56. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland. 

September 2014  55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Reijnders,  L.  (2006).  Conditions  for  the  sustainability  of  biomass  based  fuel  use. 

Energy Policy, 34: 863–876. 

RELU  (Rural  Economy  and  Land  Use  Programme)  (2010).  Assessing  the  social, 
economic  and  environmental  impacts  of  increasing  rural  land  use  under  energy 
at: 
crops. 
http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/Karp/Karp.pdf  [3 
September 2014] 

Newcastle 

Available 

online 

RELU, 

Tyne, 

upon 

UK. 

Repo,  A.,  Böttcher,  H.,  Kindermann,  G.,  Liski,  J.  (2014).  Sustainability  of  forest 
bioenergy  in  Europe:  land-use-related  carbon  dioxide  emissions  of  forest  harvest 
residues. GCB Bioenergy, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12179 

Repo, A., Tuomi, M., Liski, J. (2011). Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing 

bioenergy from forest harvest residues. GCB Bioenergy, 3: 107–115. 

Riffell,  S.,  Verschuylb,  J.,  Millerc,  D.,  Wigleyd,  T.  B.  (2011).  Biofuel  harvests,  coarse 
woody debris, and biodiversity - A meta analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 
261: 878-887. 

Robinson, D. O. (2009). A review of biodiversity impacts following increased woodfuel 
harvesting in ancient woodland in England; a critique of the Forestry Commission's 
2007 Woodfuel Strategy for England. MSc/DIC Imperial College.  

Ros, J., Olivier, J., Notenboom, J., Croezen, H., Bergsma, G. (2012). Sustainability of 
biomass in a bio-based economy. A quick-scan analysis of the biomass demand of a 
bio-based  economy  in  2030  compared  to  the  sustainable  supply,  PBL  Netherlands 
Environmental Assessment Agency, PBL Publication number: 500143001.   

Röser,  D.,  Pasanen,  K.,  Asikainen,  A.,  Roser,  D.  (2006).  Decision-support  program 
“EnerTree”  for  analyzing  forest  residue  recovery  options.  Biomass  and  Bioenergy, 
30: 326–333. 

Roundtable  on  Sustainable  Biomaterials  (2013).  RSB  principles  &  criteria  for 

sustainable biofuel production. RSB-STD-01-001 (Version 2.0) 

Rowe,  R.  L.  (2011).  Implications  for  biodiversity  of  the  deployment  of  commercial 

scale short rotation willow coppice, PhD Thesis, University of Southampton 

Rowe,  R.  L.,  Street,  N.  R.,  Taylor,  G.  (2009).  Identifying  potential  environmental 
impacts  of  large-scale  deployment  of  dedicated  bioenergy  crops  in  the  UK. 
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 271-290. 

Rowe,  R.,  Goulson,  D.,  Doncaster,  C.  P.,  Clarke,  D.,  Taylor,  G.,  Hanley,  M.  (2013). 
Evaluating  ecosystem  processes  in  willow  short  rotation  coppice  bioenergy 
plantations. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 5:257-266. 

Rytter, R. M. (2012). The potential of willow and poplar plantations as carbon sinks in 

Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy 36: 86–95. 

Scarlat,  N.,  Dallemand,  J.  F.,  Martinov,  M.  (eds)  (2008).  JRC  Scientific  and  Technical 
Reports  -  Proceedings  of  the  Workshop  ‘Cereals  straw  and  agriculture  residues  for 
bioenergy  in  European  Union  New  Member  States  and  Candidate  Countries’,  2  -  3 
October 2007, Novi Sad, Serbia. 

September 2014  56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Seidl, R., Fernandes, P. M., Fonseca, T. F., Gillet, F., Jöhnsson, A. M., Merganicová, K., 
Netherer, S., Arpaci, A., Bontemps, J. D., Bugmann, H.,  González-Olabarria, J. R., 
Lasch,  P.,  Meredieu,  C.,  Moreira,  F.,  Schelhaas,  M.,  Mohren,  G.  M.  J.  (2011). 
Modelling natural disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review. Ecological Modelling 
222: 903-924. 

Siry,  J.  P.,  Cubbage,  F.  W.,  Ahmed,  M.  R..  (2005).  Sustainable  forest  management: 

global trends and opportunities." Forest Policy and Economics 7: 551-561. 

Skinner,  R.  Howard;  Zegada-Lizarazu,  Walter;  and  Schmidt,  John  P.  (2012).  Chapter 
6:  Environmental  Impacts  of  Switchgrass  Management  for  Bioenergy  Production. 
Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty. Paper 1320. 
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2325&context=usdaarsf
acpub  

Skog,  K.,  Stanturf,  J,  (2011).  Forest  Biomass  Sustainability  and  Availability.  In:  Zhu, 
J.,  et  al.  (2011).  In  Sustainable  Production  of  Fuels,  Chemicals,  and  Fibers  from 
Forest  Biomass.  ACS  Symposium  Series;  American  Chemical  Society,  Washington, 
DC. 

Smeets,  E.  M.  W.,  Faaij,  A.  P.  C.  (2010).  The  impact  of  sustainability  criteria  on  the 
costs and potentials of bioenergy production - Applied for case studies in Brazil and 
Ukraine. Biomass and Bioenergy 34: 319–333. 

Smeets,  E.  M.  W.,  Lewandowski,  I.  M.,  Faaij,  A.  P.  C.  (2008).  The  economical  and 
environmental  performance  of  miscanthus  and  switchgrass  production  and  supply 
chains in an european setting. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 1230–
1245. 

Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K.-H. H., Lauk, C., Harper, R., … Rose, S. (2013). 
How  much  land-based  greenhouse  gas  mitigation  can  be  achieved  without 
compromising  food  security  and  environmental  goals?  Global  Change  Biology  19: 
2285–2302. doi:10.1111/gcb.12160 

Stoiber, H., Tesar, M., Bernhard, a., Denner, M., Gallauner, T., Gössl, M., Köppel, S., 
Oliva, J., Reisinger, h., stoifl, B., Walter, B., Winter, B. (forthcoming) Study on the 
suitability of the different waste derived fuels for end of waste status in accordance 
with article 6 of the Waste framework Directive. JRC/IPTS  – European Commission 
Joint  Research  Centre,  Institute  for  Prospective  Technological  Studies,  Seville,  and  
Umweltbundesamt Austria.  

Stupak, I., Lattimore, B., Titus, B. D., Smith, C. T. (2011). Criteria and indicators for 
sustainable forest fuel production and harvesting: A review of current standards for 
sustainable forest management. Biomass and Bioenergy 35: 3287-3308. 

Thiffault,  E.,  Hannam,  K.  D.,  Paré,  D.,  Titus,  B.  D.  Hazlett,  P.  W.,  Maynard,  D.  G. 
(2011).  Effects  of  forest  biomass  harvesting  on  soil  productivity  in  boreal  and 
temperate forests - A review. Environmental Reviews 19: 278-309. 

Thiffault,  E.,  Pare,  D.,  Belanger,  N.,  Munson,  A.,  Marquis,  F.  (2006).  Harvesting 
intensity  at  clear-felling  in  the  boreal  forest:  Impact  on  soil  and  foliar  nutrient 
status. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70: 691–701. 

September 2014  57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

Tricker, P.J., Pecchiari, M., Bunn, S. M., Peressotti, A., Vaccari, F., Migliette, F., Taylor, 
G.  (2009).  Increased  water  use  in  bioenergy  SRC  poplar  following  exposure  to 
elevated CO2. Biomass and Bioenergy 36: 4406-4409. 

VITO  (Flemish  Institute  for  Technological  Research)  (Ed.)  2011:  BIOBENCH  - 
Benchmarking biomass sustainability criteria for energy purposes; study carried out 
in cooperation with Oeko-Institut, TU Vienna, Utrecht University, ETA Florence, and 
REC  under  the  authority  of  the  EC  DG  ENER  under  contract  ENER/C1/495-
2009/SI2.572581, Mol. 

Wade,  T.  G.,  Riitters,  K.  H.,  Wickham,  J.  D.,  Jones,  K.  B.  (2003).  Distribution  and 

causes of global forest fragmentation. Conservation Ecology 7: 7. 

Walmsley, J., Godbold, D. (2010). Stump Harvesting for Bioenergy  - A Review of the 

Environmental Impacts. Forestry 83: 17-38. 

Walmsley, J. D., Jones, D. L., Reynolds, B., Price, M. H., Healey, J. R. (2009). Whole 
tree  harvesting  can  reduce  second  rotation  forest  productivity.  Forest  Ecology  and 
Management 257: 1104–1111. 

WBA  (World  Bioenergy  Association)  (2011).  Sustainable  Biomass  for  Energy  -  WBA 

Verification Scheme, Stockholm. 

Webb, A., Coates, D. (2012). Biofuels and biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention 

on Biological Diversity. Technical Series No. 65, Montreal  

Weih,  M.  (2004).  Intensive  short  rotation  forestry  in  boreal  climates:  present  and 
future  perspectives.  Canadian  Journal  of  Forest  Research-Revue  Canadienne  De 
Recherche Forestiere, 34: 1369–1378.  

Werling,  B.  P.,  Dickson,  T.  L.,  Isaacs,  R.,  Gaines,  H.,  Gratton,  C.,  Gross,  K.  L.,  … 
Landis,  D.  a.  (2014).  Perennial  grasslands  enhance  biodiversity  and  multiple 
ecosystem  services  in  bioenergy  landscapes.  Proceedings  of  the  National  Academy 
of 
1652–7. 
doi:10.1073/pnas.1309492111 

Sciences 

America 

United 

States 

111: 

the 

of 

of 

Winkel,  G.,  Volz,  K.-R. 

(2003).  Naturschutz  und  Forstwirtschaft: 
Kriterienkatalog  zur  "Guten  fachlichen  Praxis".  Bundesamt  für  Naturschutz  (BfN), 
Bonn. 

(Hrsg.) 

WWF (World-Wide Fund for Nature) (2012). WWF's recommendations for sustainability 
criteria for forest based biomass used in electricity,  heating and cooling in Europe. 
WWF, Brussels 

September 2014  58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

11.  Appendix 1: Methodology 

11.1.  Impact on the environment 

During  the  last  two  decades  a  vast  number  of  scientific  studies  addressing  the 
sustainability of bioenergy have been published. The challenge of this literature review 
is  to  identify  those  studies  that  are  of  relevance  for  the  modelling  under  Task  3  and 
the impact assessment under Task 4. We developed a three-step approach to fulfil this 
challenge: 

Step 1: List of available studies 
Based  on  the  knowledge  of  the  involved  project  partners  on  existing  literature  we 
generated  a  list  of  references  that  address  impacts  of  biomass  production  and 
conversion on natural resources and the global environment. In total we covered more 
than 202 references with a specific focus on review studies. All references are listed in 
the  Appendix.  General  information  on  the  references,  e.g.  focus  of  the  study, 
geographical  range  and  type  of  land  use,  is  collected  in  an  Excel  file  that  will  be 
delivered as appendix of this report. 

Step 2: Pre-selection 
Due  to  time  constraints  we  carried  out  a  pre-selection  of  those  references  to  be 
considered  in  an  in-depth  review.  Studies  were  selected  for  in-depth  review  if  they 
fulfilled  the  following  requirement:  “Are  concrete  indicators  covered  within  the  study 
(not  only  principles,  e.g.  soil  protection  is  needed,  but  information  on  how  soil 
protection  shall  be  addressed,  e.g.  listing  soil  conservation  measures)”.  In  total,  40 
studies  were  selected  for  an  in-depth  review  that  provided  information  on  more 
concrete  indicators.  The  list  in  the  Appendix  identifies  studies  selected  for  in-depth 
review. 

Step 3: In-depth review 
For  the  selected  studies  an  in-depth  review  was  carried  out.  We  categorised  the 
studies  to  make  results  of  the  review  more  comparable  across  studies  and  to  make 
sure  the  review  is  sufficiently  representative  (see  Table  11-1).  The  following 
categories  were  covered  in  all  reviews  to  achieve  a  systematic  analysis  across  all 
selected references: 

  Type of biomass. Describes the tye of biomass feedstock regarding its origin 

(agricuture or forestry) and cultivation method. 

  Type of ecosystem. Describes the type of ecosystem used for and natural 

conditions of biomass production differentiating tropical, sub-tropical, temperate 
and boreal forest and agriculture ecosystems. 

  Type of study. Describes the type of research undertaken leading to the results 
presented by the study. Types of studies under review are: Model; Empirical; 
Review /Synthesis 

  Pressure / driver. Describes the pressures and drivers of impacts addressed by 

the study. Categories are: (increase of) biomass production; conversion /transport 
/use of biomass; (general) 

  Impact. Describes the impact of biomass production or use analysed in the study. 

We differentiate between: Biodiversity; Soil; Water and water pollution; GHG-
emissions; Land-use impacts; Economic impacts; Others 

September 2014  59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

  Impact detail. Describes the impact in detail regarding concrete indicators affected 

by biomass use and production: 

o  Biodiversity. Loss of species; Loss of ecosystems; Damage of flora and 

fauna; Loss of ecosystem functions; Others 

o  Soil. Soil errosion; Soil carbon loss; Soil compaction; Soil nutrient loss; 

Soil salinization; Others 

o  Water. Over-use of water resources; Impact on water table; Water 

pollution; Others 

o  GHG emissions (incl. substitution effects). Change of carbon stock; 

Change of disturbance pattern; Others 

o  Land-use impacts. Indirect land-use change; Competition with other 

land use; Ploughing of grasslands; Overuse of forests; Others 

o  Economic impacts. Increase of revenue; Competition with other uses; 

Supply cost at the Power plant; Others 

Table 11-1  Cause of impact on biodiversity and suggested response 

Category name 

Type of biomass 

agr_all 

agr_short rotation 

agr_grasses 

Description 

All agricultural systems 

Agricultural systems providing lignocellulosic biomass from 
Short Rotation Coppice systems 
Agricultural systems providing grasses 

agr_lignocellulosic species 

Agricultural systems providing lignocellulosic biomass 

agr-animal byproducts 

agr_residues 

for_all 

for_round wood 

for_residues_all 

for_residues_stumps 

for_residues_branches 

for_dead wood 

waste_all 

Agricultural systems providing biomass as a by-product of 
animal production 
Agricultural systems providing biomass as residue of 
agricultural crop production 
All forestry systems 

Forestry systems providing biomass from round wood 

Forestry systems providing biomass from primary and 
secondary residues 
Forestry systems providing biomass from primary residues 
based on stump extraction 
Forestry systems providing biomass from primary residues 
based on branch extraction 
Forestry systems providing biomass from primary residues 
based on dead wood extraction 
All waste categories 

waste_food waste 

Biomass from food waste 

waste_biological fraction MSW 

Biomass from the biological fraction of Municipal Solid 
Waste (i.e. households) 

The relevant references were further screened for information describing: 

  Cause of impact (e.g., inappropriate management, degradation etc.) 

  Suggested response (e.g., thresholds, default values, measures etc.) 

September 2014  60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 2 Report 

  Suggestions on incorporating impact in modeling (e.g. datasets, procedures, 

etc.) 

In  case  that  a  reference  covered  different  categories,  a  new  entry  was  produced  to 
cover  this  specific information.  This  means  that  a  single  reference  may  occur  several 
times in the in-depth review list for different aspects. 
The  information  gathered  from  selected  studies  is  presented  in  a  summary  table  and 
further described in the text. 

11.2.  Cascading use 

Similar to the review on impacts on the environment relevant references are collected 
for the topic of cascade use. The selected references were screened for information on 
measures  and  instruments  addressing  explicitly  the  cascade  use  of  biomass.  On 
purpose  a  wide  definition  of  cascade  use  was  adopted  include  in  the  beginning  as 
many  studies  as  possible.  This  definition  describes  cascade  use  of  biomass  products 
that  are  at  least  once  recycled,  reused  or  recovered  for  either  material,  chemical  or 
energy use. Due to the fact that publications on cascade use are rare, no pre-selection 
procedure  was  needed  and  all  found  references  were  covered  in  the  review.  In  total 
nine studies were selected for an analysis. 

September 2014  61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on impacts on resource 
efficiency of future EU demand 
for bioenergy 

Task 3: Modelling of impacts of an increased EU 
bioenergy demand on biomass production, use 
and prices 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Authors: 
Nicklas Forsell (IIASA) 
Anu Korosuo (IIASA) 
Petr Havlík (IIASA) 
Hugo Valin (IIASA) 
Pekka Lauri (IIASA) 
Mykola Gusti (IIASA) 
Georg Kindermann (IIASA) 
Michael Obersteiner (IIASA) 

Consortium leader: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 

Consortium members: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 
Indufor Oy, Finland 
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), United Kingdom 
Öko-Institut e.V., Germany 
European Forest Institute (EFI), Finland 

January 2016  2 

 
        
         
 
       
         
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Table of Contents 

4. 

5. 

Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 3 
Glossary ........................................................................................................... 4 
Foreword .........................................................................................................12 
Introduction and the use of prospective scenarios .......................................13 
1. 
Baseline and policy scenarios – overview ....................................................15 
2. 
Summary of the key findings ....................................................................17 
3. 
3.1 Baseline scenario .....................................................................................17 
3.2 Policy scenarios ........................................................................................18 
3.3 Analysis of model assumptions ...................................................................19 
Models ...................................................................................................20 
4.1 Overview of the applied integrated framework .............................................20 
4.2 Input data from Task 1 .............................................................................21 
4.3 Bioenergy demand projections ...................................................................23 
4.4 Trade assumptions concerning wood biomass ..............................................24 
4.5 Definitions ...............................................................................................27 
Baseline Scenario ....................................................................................29 
5.1 Storyline .................................................................................................29 
5.2 Main underlying assumptions .....................................................................30 
5.3 Key outcomes of the baseline scenario. .......................................................33 
Policy Scenarios ......................................................................................43 
6.1.  Storyline of the EU Emission Reduction Scenario ......................................43 
6.2.  Storyline of the Constant EU Bioenergy Demand Scenario .........................50 
6.3.  Storyline of the Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand Scenario .....................55 
6.4.  Storyline of the Increased EU Biomass Import Scenario ............................59 
Overview of the differences between the scenarios ......................................66 
Analysis of central modeling assumptions ...................................................78 
8.1.  Changes in the EU bioenergy demand .....................................................78 
8.2.  Availability of biomass feedstocks for energy ...........................................82 
8.3.  Cascading use of biomass ......................................................................85 
References.......................................................................................................93 
Annex I – Bioenergy demand projections .............................................................95 
POLES bioenergy demand within GLOBIOM .......................................................95 
PRIMES bioenergy demand within GLOBIOM .....................................................96 
Annex II – Detailed model description .................................................................99 
GLOBIOM model description ............................................................................99 
G4M model description ................................................................................. 106 
References and further reading ........................................................................ 108 

7. 
8. 

6. 

January 2016  3 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Glossary 
Anaerobic digestion 
Anaerobic  digestion  is  a  biological  process  making  it  possible  to  degrade  organic 
matter, in absence of oxygen, by producing biogas and sludge. The organic matter is 
degraded partially by the combined action of several types of micro-organisms. 

Bioenergy 
Energy produced from biomass sources excluding biofuels. 

Biofuels 
Transportation  fuels  made  from  biomass;  such  as  biodiesel,  bioethanol  and  biogas. 
First-generation biofuels refer to fuels derived from food crops, such as grains, sugar 
beet and oil seeds. They are relatively easy to manufacture, and thus the main type of 
biofuels produced today. Second-generation, or advanced, biofuels are produced from 
non-food  biomass  such  as  ligno-cellulosic  materials  or  biogenic  waste.  They  are 
considered  superior  to  first-generation  biofuels  especially  in  terms  of  their  social  and 
environmental  impact;  however,  their  production  is  much  more  complicated  and 
commercial production methods are still under development. 

Biogenic waste 
According  to  Article  3(4)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  (2008/98/CE),  biogenic 
waste  is  ‘biodegradable  garden  and  park  waste,  food  and  kitchen  waste  from 
households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from food 
processing plants.’ 

Biomass 
“Biodegradable  fraction  of  products,  waste  and  residues  from  biological  origin  from 
agriculture  (including  vegetal  and  animal  substances),  forestry  and  related  industries 
including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial 
and municipal waste”. (Renewable Energy Directive (article 2). 

Bio-oil 
Also known as pyrolysis oil is a liquid produced from pyrolysis. It has a calorific value 
of  17.5  MJ/kg  and  an  energy  density  of  20-30  GJ/m3.  Bio-oil  can  be  combusted  for 
power in boiler, stationary engines and turbines, or upgraded for transport fuel. 

Black liquor 
Black  liquor  is  the  spent  cooking  liquor  produced  from  the  kraft  process  when 
digesting  pulpwood  into  paper  pulp.  Lignin,  hemicelluloses  and  other  substances  are 
removed  from  the  wood  to  free  the  cellulose  fibres.  The  pulp  industry  derives  a 
significant share its bioenergy in the form of black liquor. 

Chemical pulp 
Sulphate (kraft) and soda and sulphite wood pulp except dissolving grades, bleached, 
semi-bleached and unbleached. (FAOSTAT) 

CHP 
Combined Heat and Power production 

Co-firing 
Co-firing  is  a  primary  application  of  combusting  industrial  wood  pellets  aside  with 
pulverized  coal  in  older  coal  power  plants.  Typically  co-firing  enables  5-15%  mixture 
of  wood  pellets  combusted  with  coal  in  order  to  minimize  investment  costs,  process 

January 2016  4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

modification  and,  most  of  all,  overall  process  efficiency.  However,  with  equipment 
modernization 40% share of wood pellets is possible. 

Composting 
Composting  is  a  process  by  which  organic  matter  is  degraded  by  a  microbial 
population  consisting  of  bacteria  and  fungi  consuming  oxygen  and  producing  CO2, 
water, compost or humus and heat (exothermic). 

CSR 
Corporate Social Responsibility 

EU 
European Union 

FAO 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

Food waste 
According  to  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  amending  the  Waste  Framework  Directive, 
food  waste  is  ‘food  including  inedible  parts  from  the  food  supply  chain,  not  including 
food  diverted  to  material  uses  such  as  bio-based  products,  animal  feed  or  sent  for 
redistribution.’ 

Forest 
The FAO FRA definition is used when classifying land as forest, not including land that 
has trees on it but is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use (FAO 20121).  
Protected  forests  (as  defined  by  WDPA  Consortium  20042)  are  excluded  from  the 
analysis  and  no  conversion  or  use  of  protected  forest  is  allowed.  Forest  that  is  not 
protected  is  considered  as  forests  available  for  wood  supply.  Forests  include  natural 
and semi-natural forests, as well as forest plantations. 

Forest-based industries 
Industries using wood, paper or recovered paper and wood as their main raw material. 
These  include  manufacturers  of  sawnwood,  wood-based  panels  and  other  wooden 
products, pulp and paper, as well as the packaging and printing industries.  

Forest chips 
Forest  chips  are  fresh  wood  chips  made  directly  of  wood  that  is  harvested  from  the 
forest, used for energy production, and has not had any previous use (as opposed to 
wood  chips  from  industrial  by-products).  There  are  several  raw  material  types  of 
forest chips:  
  Tops and branches removed from trees during final felling 
  Sawlogs that are rejected being unsuitable for material purposes due to decay etc. 
  Delimbed small size stems or un-delimbed small-size trees from thinnings 
  Pulpwood size logs allocated to energy production from thinning or final felling 
  Tree stumps. 

1 FAO 2012. FRA 2015 – Terms and definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180.  
2 WDPA Consortium, 2004: World Database on Protected Areas. Copyright World Conservation Union (IUCN) 

and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 

January 2016  5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Forest residues 
Forest  residues  are  sometimes  referred  to  separately  from  forest  chips.  Forest 
residues  are  typically  leftover  branches,  stumps  and  stem  tops  from  logging 
operations – thinning or final felling, chipped and mostly used for energy production. 
Forest residues are gathered from the logging site and forwarded to the roadside to be 
loaded on truck for long distance transport. 

FSC 
Forest Stewardship Council 

Fuelwood (firewood) 
Fuelwood  is  roundwood  being  used  as  fuel  for  such  purposes  as  cooking,  heating  or 
power  production.  It  includes  wood  harvested  from  main  stems,  branches  and  other 
parts  of  trees  (where  these  are  harvested  for  fuel)  and  wood  that  is  used  for  the 
production  of  charcoal  (e.g.  in  pit  kilns  and  portable  ovens),  wood  pellets  and  other 
agglomerates. The volume of roundwood used  in charcoal production is estimated by 
using a factor of 6.0 to convert from the weight (mt) of charcoal produced to the solid 
volume (m³) of roundwood used in production. It also includes wood chips to be used 
for fuel that are made directly (i.e. in the forest) from roundwood. (FAOSTAT) In this 
project,  the  household  and  industrial  uses  of  fuelwood  are  sometimes  separated  and 
referred to, respectively, as firewood and roundwood for energy. 

Hardwood 
Hardwood  generally  refers  to  all  deciduous  woods  derived  from  trees  classified 
botanically  as  Angiospermae,  e.g.  Acer  spp.,  Dipterocarpus  spp.,  Entandrophragma 
spp., Eucalyptus spp., Fagus spp., Populus spp., Quercus spp., Shorea spp., Swietonia 
spp., Tectona spp., etc. Sometimes referred to as broadleaves. (FAOSTAT) 

ICT 
Information and communications technology 

Industrial By-Products 
Industrial by-products include industrial chips, sawdust, shavings, trimmings and bark. 
They are supplied as by-products available in proportions from the processes of wood 
products  industry,  mainly  sawmilling  but  also  wood  based  panels  and  joinery 
production.  Industrial  by-products  have  to  be  clean  and  they  are  not  altered  by  any 
chemical  process.  They  are  important  raw  materials  for  pulp,  wood  based  panels 
(Particleboard,  MDF/HDF)  and  wood  pellet  production  as  well  as  in  bioenergy 
production as such. 

Landfill 
Directive  1999/31/EC  on  the  landfill  of  waste  defines  landfill  as  a  waste  disposal  site 
for  the  deposit  of  the  waste  onto  or  into  land  (i.e.  underground),  including  internal 
waste disposal sites, and a permanent site (i.e. more than one year) which is used for 
temporary storage of waste. 

m3 o.b. 
Volume of roundwood in cubic meters measured over bark.  

Mechanical pulp 
Wood  pulp  obtained  by  grinding  or  milling:  coniferous  or  non-coniferous  rounds, 
quarters, billets, etc into fibres or through refining coniferous or non-coniferous chips. 
Also  called  groundwood  pulp  and  refiner  pulp.  It  may  be  bleached  or  unbleached.  It 
excludes  exploded  and  defibrated  pulp,  and  includes  chemi-mechanical  and  thermo-
mechanical pulp. (FAOSTAT) 

January 2016  6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

MDF/HDF 
Medium-Density  Fibreboard  (MDF)  is  a  wood-based  panel  made  of  fibres  bonded 
together  with  resin.  When  density  exceeds  0.8  g/cm³,  it  may  also  be  referred  to  as 
“High-Density  Fibreboard”  (HDF).  It  is  reported  in  cubic  metres  solid  volume.  The 
board  is  relatively  homogeneous  throughout  its  thickness  without  distinctive  surface 
and core layers. Therefore the processing qualities are better than with solid wood and 
particleboard. (FAOSTAT) 

Mtoe 
Million tonnes of oil equivalent. One tonne of oil equivalent (toe) refers to the amount 
of energy released by burning one tonne of crude oil. 

NREAP 
National Renewable Energy Action Plan 

OSB 
Oriented  Strand  Board  is  a  structural  board  in  which  layers  of  narrow  wafers  are 
layered alternately at right angles in order to give the board greater elastomechanical 
properties.  The  wafers,  which  resemble  small  pieces  of  veneer,  are  coated  with  e.g. 
waterproof phenolic resin glue, interleaved together in mats and then bonded together 
under  heat  and  pressure.  The  resulting  product  is  a  solid,  uniform  building  panel 
having high strength and water resistance. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume. 
(FAOSTAT) 

Other industrial roundwood, other wood products 
Roundwood  used  for  tanning,  distillation,  match  blocks,  gazogenes,  poles,  piling, 
posts, pitprops, etc. (FAOSTAT) 

Other natural vegetation (other natural land) 
Other natural land is a land use category as used in GLOBIOM that includes a mixture 
of  land  that  cannot  be  properly  classified  such  as  unused  cropland  (if  not  fallow)  or 
grassland, including natural grasslands. 

Particleboard 
Particleboard  is  a  panel  manufactured  from  small  pieces  of  wood  or  other  ligno-
cellulosic materials (e.g. chips, flakes, splinters, strands, shreds, shaves, etc.) bonded 
together  by  the  use  of  an  organic  binder  together  with  one  or  more  of  the  following 
agents:  heat,  pressure,  humidity,  a  catalyst,  etc.  The  particle  board  category  is  an 
aggregate category, including for example oriented strandboard (OSB). (FAOSTAT) 

Perennial ligno-cellulosic biomass   
Perennial  ligno-cellulosic  biomass  covers  biomass  from  species  such  as  miscanthus 
and  reed  canary  grass  that  can  be  established  and  used  to  produce  biomass  for 
energy purposes. 

Plywood 
Plywood  is  a  panel  consisting  of  an  assembly  of  veneer  sheets  bonded  together  with 
the direction of the grain in alternate plies generally at right angles. The veneer sheets 
are usually placed symmetrically on both sides of a central ply or core that may itself 
be made from a veneer sheet or another material. It excludes laminated construction 
materials  (e.g.  glulam),  where  the  grain  of  the  veneer  sheets  generally  runs  in  the 
same direction. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume. (FAOSTAT) 

January 2016  7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Production capacity 
Production capacity is the volume of products  that can be generated  by a production 
plant or enterprise in a given time period by using current machinery. Several factors 
e.g.  lack  of  raw  materials  can  cause  the  actual  production  to  remain  below  the 
maximum production capacity. 

Pulplogs (pulpwood) 
Roundwood  (excluding tops  and  branches)  not  satisfying  the  diameter  and/or  quality 
constraints  of  sawmill  and  plywood  industries.  This  type  of  stemwood  is  commonly 
used  for  pulp  and  particleboard  production.  Pulplogs  are  typically  the  main  type  of 
roundwood harvested in thinnings, where the mean diameter of the harvested trees is 
relatively small. In this project, we use the term pulplog instead of the more common 
pulpwood to highlight that we refer to the harvested feedstock quality, and not to the 
final  use  of  the  stem.  That  is,  pulplogs  are  assumed  to  be  available  for  use  in 
particleboard and pulp production, as well as for bioenergy purposes. 

Recovered wood 
Recovered wood includes all kinds of wood material which, at the end of its life cycle in 
wooden  products,  is  made  available  for  re-use  or  recycling.  Re-use  can  be  either  for 
material  purposes  or  energy  production.  This  group  mainly  includes  used  packaging 
materials, wood from demolition projects, unused or scrap timber from building sites, 
and  parts  of  wood  from  residential,  industrial  and  commercial  activities.  Sometimes 
referred as “post-consumer” or “post-use” wood.  

Recovery 
According  to  Article  3(15)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  (2008/98/EC)  recovery 
means ‘any operations the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose 
by  replacing  other  materials  which  would  otherwise  have  been  used  to  fulfil  that 
function, in the plant or in the wider economy.’ 

Recycling 
According  to  Article  3(17)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  (2008/98/EC)  recycling 
means  ‘any  recovery  operation  by  which  waste  materials  are  reprocesses  into 
products,  materials  or  substances  whether  for  the  original  or  other  purposes.  It 
includes reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the 
reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels of for backfilling operations.’ 

Residential Wood Pellets 
Residential  wood  pellets  are  manufactured  from  clean  by-products  of  sawmilling 
industry (sawdust, chips, and shavings); according to strict standards in terms of size, 
shape, cleanliness and moisture content (i.e. EN 14961). They are used in small scale 
wood pellet heating applications requiring uniform quality of fuel. 

Residue-to-crop ratio 
Describes  the  ratio  of  the  amount  of  residues  resulting  from  crop  production  and  the 
amount of crops produced. 

Roundwood 
Roundwood  is  an  aggregate  comprising  of  felled  or  otherwise  harvested  and  removed 
wood, with or without bark. It includes sawlogs and veneer logs; pulpwood, round and 
split;  other  industrial  roundwood,  and  also  branches,  roots,  stumps  and  burls  (where 
these are harvested). It is reported in cubic metres solid volume. 

January 2016  8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Roundwood for energy 
Roundwood  that  is  directly  used  for  energy  production  in  small  or  large  conversion 
facilities. This category does not include the wood biomass obtained from industrial by-
products, nor firewood (household use of energy for fuel), nor forest residues. As such, 
the  category accounts for stem wood that  is  of industrial roundwood quality and  could 
be used for material purposes by the forest-based sector but that is instead being used 
for energy production.  

Sawlogs 
Roundwood  of  sawlog  or  veneer  log  quality  (excluding  tops  and  branches).  In  this 
study,  sawlogs  refer  to  roundwood  that  could  be  used  for  sawnwood  or  plywood 
production,  satisfying  the  diameter  and  quality  constraints  of  these  industries. 
Sawlogs  are  typically  the  main  type  of  roundwood  harvested  in  final  fellings,  where 
the mean diameter of the harvested trees is relatively large. 

Sawnwood 
Wood that has been produced from both domestic and imported roundwood, either by 
sawing  lengthways  or  by  a  profile-chipping  process  and  that  exceeds  6  mm  in 
thickness.  It  includes  planks,  beams,  joists,  boards,  rafters,  scantlings,  laths, 
boxboards  and  "lumber",  etc.,  in  the  following  forms:  unplaned,  planed,  end-jointed, 
etc. It excludes sleepers, wooden flooring, mouldings (sawnwood continuously shaped 
along  any  of  its  edges  or  faces,  like  tongued,  grooved,  rebated,  V-jointed,  beaded, 
moulded, rounded or the like) and sawnwood produced by re-sawing previously sawn 
pieces. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume (FAOSTAT). 

Sewage sludge 
According  to  Article  2(a)  of  the  Directive  on  sewage  sludge  used  in  agriculture 
(86/278/EEC)  sludge  is  ‘  i)  residual  sludge  from  sewage  plants  treating  domestic  or 
urban  waste  waters  and  from  other  sewage  plants  treating  waste  waters  of  a 
composition  similar  to  domestic    and  urban  waste  waters;  ii)  residual  sludge  from 
septic  tanks  and  other  similar  installations  for  the  treatment  of  sewage;  iii)  residual 
sludge from sewage plants other than those referred to in i) and ii).’ 

SRC 
See Short Rotation Coppice 

Short Rotation Coppice 
Short rotation coppices are formed by tree plantations established and managed under 
an intensive, short-rotation regime on agricultural land. They can be established  with 
quickly  growing  species  such  as  poplar  and  willow,  and  managed  under  a  coppice 
system in a two-to-five-year rotation.  

Softwood 
Softwood  generally  refers  to  all  coniferous  woods  derived  from  trees  classified 
botanically  as  Gymnospermae,  e.g.  Abies  spp.,  Araucaria  spp.,  Cedrus  spp., 
Chamaecyparis  spp.,  Cupressus  spp.,  Larix  spp.,  Picea  spp.,  Pinus  spp.,  Thuja  spp., 
Tsuga spp., etc. (FAOSTAT) 

Solid wood equivalent 
Solid wood equivalent (SWE) represents the volume of roundwood that is contained in 
a  given  amount  of  wood  material.  Typically,  pulp  and  pellets  are  measured  and 
reported  in tons.  In  this  report,  1  ton  of  mechanical  or  chemical  pulp=2.22  m3  SWE, 
and  1  ton  of  pellets=2.5  m3  SWE.  In  addition,  fibreboard  is  more  dense  than 
roundwood, and followingly, 0.7 m3 of fibreboard=1 m3 SWE in this report.  

January 2016  9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Textile waste 
Textile waste consists of all kinds of textile and leather material which are discarded. 
This  includes  used  packaging,  worn  clothes  and  used  textiles,  and  waste  from 
fibre/leather  preparation  and  processing,  as  well  as  separately  collected  textile  and 
leather. 

Torrefaction 
Torrefaction is a pre-treatment technology where the biomass is slowly heated to 240-
300 C° in the absence of oxygen. The treatment degrades the biomass into a coal-like 
product  without  major  fibrous  structure,  making  it  easy  to  grind.  The  torrefied 
biomass  has  a  calorific  value  of  19-23  MJ/kg  and  a  high  energy  density.  Torrefied 
wood pellets are sometimes called “black pellets” or “pelletized biocoal”.  

Used and unused forest 
Unused  forests  do  currently  not  contribute  to  wood  supply,  based  on  economic 
decision  rules  in  the  model.  However,  they  may  still  be  a  source  for  collection  and 
production of non-wood goods (e.g. food, wild game, ornimental plants). Forests that 
are  used  in  a  certain  period  to  meet  the  wood  demand,  so–called  used  forests,  are 
modelled to be managed for woody biomass production. This implies a certain rotation 
time, thinning events and final harvest.  

Examples of used forests are: 

  A  forest  that  is  actively  managed  (through  thinning  or  clearcut  activities  etc.) 
on  a  regular  basis  and the  wood  is  collected  for  subsistence  use  or  to  be  sold 
on markets. 

  A  forest  that  has  been  regenerated  (either  by  direct  planting  or  natural  re-
growth)  after  harvesting  and  where  the  forest  is  intended  to  be  actively 
managed in the future and the collected wood to be sold on market. 

  A forest used on a regular basis for collection of firewood for subsistence use or 

to be sold on markets.   

  A forest concession or community forest used for collection of wood for export 

and/or domestic markets. 

Waste 
The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) defines waste ‘any substance or object 
which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard’. 

(Waste) prevention 
According to Article 3(12) of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) prevention 
means  ‘measures  taken  before  a  substance  material  or  product  has  become  waste, 
that  reduce  a)  the  quantity  of  waste  […];  b)  the  adverse  impacts  of  the  generated 
waste on the environment and human health; or c) the content of harmful substances 
in materials and products.’ 

Wood Based Panels 
This  product  category  is  an  aggregate  comprising  veneer  sheets,  plywood,  particle 
board, and fibreboard. It is reported in cubic metres solid volume. (FAOSTAT) 

Wood chips 
Wood  chips  are  wood  that  has  been  reduced  to  small  pieces  and  can  be  used  for 
material  production  or  as  a  fuel.  For  pulping,  particle  board  and/or  fibreboard 
production, the chips need to be without bark, for fuel use the wood chips may contain 
bark.  

January 2016  10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Wood pellets 
Wood pellets are refined wood fuels traditionally made of clean industrial by-products 
of the mechanical wood industry, mainly wood chips, sawdust and/or shavings. Wood 
pellets  are  cylinder  shaped  and  their  diameter  varies  between  6  -  8  mm  and  length 
between 10 - 30 mm. The heat value of one kilogram of pellets correspond almost half 
a litre of light fuel oil. Unlike other wood based commodities (sawnwood, wood based 
panels)  the  production,  consumption  or  traded  volumes  of  wood  pellets  are  usually 
reported in tonnes. In trade of wood pellets price reference is commonly set per tonne 
of pellets. 

January 2016  11 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Foreword 
The aim of the “Resource efficiency impacts of future EU bioenergy demand” (ReceBio) 
project  is  to  help  better  understand  the  potential  interactions  and  impacts  resulting 
from increased EU demand for bioenergy, and specifically the implications for resource 
efficiency. To achieve this, the study as a whole builds on the best available data and 
understanding  of  biomass  resource  at  present,  and  models  projected  use  of  biomass 
for energy and materials up to 2050. The intention is to understand the consequences 
on resource efficiency and the environment of pursuing different bioenergy pathways. 
To  date,  the  project  team  has  conducted  detailed  analysis  of  the  availability  of 
biomass  resources  and  current  use  of  biomass  in  the  EU.  In  parallel,  a  detailed 
assessment  of  literature  reviewing  the  impacts  of  biomass  use  on  natural  resources 
and  the  global  environment  has  been  made.  The  outputs  of  these  assessments 
provided  key  inputs  to  the  model-based  assessment  of  the  implications  of  biomass 
resource use.  

The  starting  point  for  the  analysis  under  ReceBio  is  the  EU  2020  climate  and  energy 
targets  and  the  proposed  EU  2030  package.  In  this  context,  the  baseline  and  GHG 
emission  reduction  scenarios  are  based  on  the  EU  Reference  Scenario3  used  in  the 
2014  EU  Impact  Assessment4.  The  analysis  focuses  on  biomass  use  for  heat  and 
electricity, hence excluding biofuels.  

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s). 

January 2016  12 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

1. Introduction and the use of prospective scenarios 
The  starting  point  for  the  study  is  the  EU  2020  climate  and  energy  targets  and  the 
proposed  EU  2030  framework  and  targets.  In  this  context,  the  baseline  of  this  study 
will be specified as close as possible to that of the EU Reference Scenario3 used in the 
2014 EU Impact Assessment4 (hereafter referred to as the “2014 IA report”). The GHG 
emission reduction scenario of this study will follow  the GHG 40 EE scenario specified 
in  the  same  IA.  Furthermore,  this  study  uses  the  same  modelling  framework  (e.g. 
GLOBIOM5  and  G4M6)  for  analysing  the  land  use  implications  as  the  Commission 
reports, which improves consistency and comparability between the reports. 

GLOBIOM  is  a  global  model  of  the  forest  and  agricultural  sectors,  where  the  supply 
side  of  the  model  is  built-up  from  the  bottom  (land  cover,  land  use,  management 
systems) to the top (production/markets). The model computes market equilibrium for 
agricultural  and  forest  products  by  allocating land  use  among  production  activities  to 
maximize  the  sum  of  producer  and  consumer  surplus,  subject  to  resource, 
technological  and  policy  constraints.  The  level  of  production  in  a  given  area  is 
determined  by  the  agricultural  or  forestry  productivity  in  that  area  (dependent  on 
suitability  and  management),  by  market  prices  (reflecting  the  level  of  demand),  and 
by  the  conditions  and  cost  associated  to  conversion  of  the  land,  to  expansion  of  the 
production  and,  when  relevant,  to  international  market  access.  Trade  is  modelled 
following spatial equilibrium approach, which means that the trade flows are balanced 
out  between  different  specific  geographical  regions.  This  allows  tracing  of  bilateral 
trade  flows  between  individual  regions.  A  more  detailed  description  of  the  model 
frameworks that are applied for this project is provided in Chapter 4 and Annex II. 

In this study, biofuels are left outside the analysis of the results. Biomass used for the 
production  of  biofuels  for  the  transport  sector  is  still  included  in  the  modelling 
framework,  and  the  full  range  of  biofuel  feedstocks  and  technological  pathways 
available  for  production  of  1st  and  2nd  generation  biofuels  are  considered.  Demand 
projections  for  biofuels  will  be  the  same  as  in  the  scenarios  of  the  2014  IA  report. 
However,  when  discussing  various  different  uses  of  biomass  within  this  project,  we 
include  all  other  uses  of  biomass  except  for  biofuel.  Furthermore,  the  use  of 
harvesting residues and waste related biomass feedstocks is also being left out in this 
Task  report.  As  that  of  the  use  of  biomass  for  the  production  of  biofuel  for  the 
transport sector, the use of agricultural residues and waste related biomass feedstocks 
is  considered  within  the  modelling  framework  and  their  demand  projections  are  fixed 
to that of the scenarios of the 2014 IA report. A more detailed description of how this 
is done is provided in Annex I. 

In this project, a baseline scenario was first constructed to project future development 
as  a  continuation  of  on-going  trends  and  historical  developments.  The  scenario  as 
such depicts a development trajectory wherein current policies remain unchanged, no 
new policies come into play, and no major changes from past trends occur. In addition 

3 European Commission. EU Energy, transport and GHG emissions trends to 2050. Reference scenario 2013. 

(2013). 

4  European  Commission.  Impact  Assessment:  Accompanying  the  Communication  A  policy  framework  for 

climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030. (2014). 

5  Havlík,  Petr,  et  al.  "Climate  change  mitigation  through  livestock  system  transitions."  Proceedings  of  the 

National Academy of Sciences 111.10 (2014): 3709-3714. 

6 Gusti M. An algorithm for simulation of forest management decisions in the global forest model. Artificial 

Intelligence (2010a) N4:45-49. 

January 2016  13 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

to  the  baseline  scenario,  a  number  of  policy  scenarios  were  produced  to  highlight 
alternative future development and  analyse their implications. Each policy scenario is 
built around a clear storyline and will focus on a single particular issue or aspect of the 
bioenergy markets.  To  allow a clear identification of the  consequences and trade-offs 
related  to  the  policy  developments  analysed,  change  in  assumptions  in  a  policy 
scenario  only  affects  a  part  of  the  modelling  framework  being  used.  With  this 
construction, differences in outcomes between the baseline and a policy scenario can 
be directly attributed to the issue that the policy scenario is reflecting. 

The  impacts  of  different  scenarios  were  evaluated  on  2030  and  2050  time  horizons. 
Comparisons  among  scenario  projections  estimate  how  policy  scenarios  impact 
indicators  such  as  regional  production  of  different  types  of  biomass,  forest 
management  strategies,  international  trade  of  biomass  between  countries/regions, 
and  use  of  biomass  resources  in  relevant  sectors  (e.g.  energy,  building,  wood-
processing industry). 

The  modelling  efforts  will  also  focus  on  evaluating  the  environmental  and  natural 
resource  implications  of  the  policy  scenarios.  This  will  be  performed  in  a  two-stage 
approach where scenario-specific results will first be analysed in order to quantify the 
impacts  on  aspects  such  as  biodiversity,  soil,  land  use  (including  direct  and  indirect 
land  use  change),  overall  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)-balance  in  the  LULUCF  (land  use, 
land use change and forestry) sector, and forest carbon stocks (see report from Task 
4).  In  a  second  stage,  and  depending  on  the  modelling  results  obtained  in  the  first 
step,  a  set  of  constraints  will  be  imposed  in  the  model  in  order  to  limit  the 
environmental  impacts  that  appeared  the  most  salient  ones  in  the  results  of  the  1st 
stage  of  the  modelling  (this  will  therefore  mimic  the  introduction  of  sustainability 
criteria  related  to  these  impacts).  Thereafter,  the  analysis  of  the  impact  specific 
indicators will be re-run. 

January 2016  14 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

2. Baseline and policy scenarios – overview  
The  analysis  of  this  study  is  based  on  the  2020  climate  and  energy  package  by  the 
Commission and framed within the context of EU targets for renewable energy targets 
for  2030  and  2050.  For  this  purpose,  the  Baseline  and  Emission  Reduction  Scenario 
were  specified  as  close  as  possible  to  that  of  the  reference  and  GHG40/EE  scenarios 
used  in  reports  for  the  Commission3,4.  Furthermore,  this  study  uses  the  same 
modelling  framework  (e.g.  GLOBIOM)  for  analysing  the  land  use  implications  as  the 
Commission  reports,  which  improves  consistency  and  comparability  between  the 
reports. Underlying scenario-specific development for the Rest of the World (RoW) has 
been  updated  to  taken  into  account  the  recent  GECO  20157  analyses.  Further 
adjustments  in  terms  of  scenarios,  assumptions,  and  model  constructions  between 
this  project  and  that  of  the  2014  IA4  are  detailed  in  Chapter  4  and  under  scenario 
descriptions in Chapters 5 and 6. 

To  analyse  the  impact  of  increasing  EU  bioenergy  demand  and  developments  in  the  
(RoW), the following baseline and policy scenarios will be applied and analysed within 
the project (see also Table 1): 

  Baseline Scenario: Assumes a continuation of current trends of bioenergy 

demand. This scenario follows the most recent Reference Scenario for EU3 with 
some adjustments. The main deviations from the EU Reference Scenario are: (I) 
updating the data concerning the current production and use of biomass based on 
results from Task 1 (see Chapter 2.2), (II) not applying pre-described feedstock-
specific bio energy demands projection, instead allowing for substitutions between 
feedstock categories and selecting the feedstock’s to be used for energy purposes 
based on land use competition, (III) applying scenario-specific development of 
bioenergy demand and social-economic drivers in RoW according to GECO 2015 
baseline (see Chapter 4.3).  

  EU Emission Reduction Scenario: Explores the possible consequences of an 
increasing bioenergy demand, in line with the proposed EU decarbonisation 
objectives for 2030/20504. 

  Constant EU Bioenergy Demand Scenario: Explores the implication of bioenergy 

demand first increasing as in the EU Emission Reduction Scenario, and then 
stabilizing after 20204. 

  Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand Scenario: Assumes increasing bioenergy 
demand levels in the EU as in the EU Emission Reduction Scenario, as well as 
increased bioenergy demand for the RoW as described in the GECO 2015 Global 
Mitigation Scenario7.  

  Increased EU Biomass Import Scenario: Examines the implications of a higher 

level of biomass imports to EU from RoW for meeting the proposed EU 
decarbonisation objectives for 2030/2050. Also, the scenario assumes a higher 
biomass demand level than the baseline scenario, in line with the EU Emission 
Reduction Scenario. 

7  Labat,  A.,  Kitous,  A.,  Perry,  M.,  Saveyn,  B.,  Vandyck,  T.,  and  Vrontisi,  Z.  (2015).  GECO2015.  Global 

Energy and Climate Outlook. Road to Paris. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, EUR 27239 EN. 

January 2016  15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Table 1. Overview of the main differences between the baseline and policy scenarios. 

Main model parameters 

Baseline 

Baseline 
Scenario 

Policy 
scenarios 

EU Emission 
Reduction 
Scenario 

Constant EU 
Bioenergy 
Demand 
Scenario 

Increased RoW 
Bioenergy 
Demand 
Scenario 

Increased EU 
Biomass Import 
Scenario 

Bioenergy 
demand in 
EU28 

As in EU 
Reference 
Scenario 

As in 
GHG40/EE 
(increased 
level in 2050 
compared to 
baseline) 

As in 
GHG40/EE 
until year 
2020, then 
constant 

As in GHG40/EE 

Bioenergy 
demand in RoW 

Biomass 
import to EU28 

As in GECO 
Baseline Scenario 

Estimated by 
model 

As in baseline 

Estimated by 
model 

As in baseline 

Estimated by 
model 

As in GECO 
Global 
Mitigation 
Scenario 
(increased level 
compared to 
baseline) 

As in GHG40/EE 

As in baseline 

Estimated by 
model 

Enhanced 
import 
(estimated by 
model) 

January 2016  16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

3. Summary of the key findings 

3.1 Baseline scenario  

The Baseline scenario of this project depicts the development of biomass use under 
bioenergy policies that aim at a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 
the  EU28  by  2020.  It  is  based  on  the  EU  Reference  Scenario  of  the  2014  Impact 
Assessment (Commission 2014) for the EU, and the GECO2015 baseline for rest of the 
world  (RoW).  Updates  have  been  made  on  the  set  of  biomass  feedstocks  and  forest 
industry representation, but the aim has been to keep the Baseline of this study and 
that of the EU Reference Scenario as comparable as possible. 

The  results  show  a  clear  increase  of  wood  used  for  both  material  and  energy 
production  between  2010  and  2050  in  the  Baseline  scenario.  On  the  bioenergy  side, 
considerably larger amount of wood biomass is needed for energy production 
already  in  2030,  compared  to  the  2010  level.  While  the  firewood  used  for 
domestic  heating  is  expected  to  gradually  decrease  as  a  result  of  shifting  to  district 
heating  and  more  advanced  technologies  for  power  production  and  improvements  in 
energy efficiency, other feedstocks for energy production are seen to increase notably. 
Half  of  the  total  biomass  for  heat  and  power  production  in  2010  is  retrieved  from 
industrial  by-products  of  wood  material  industries  (sawdust,  wood  chips,  bark  and 
black liquor), and its share is foreseen to remain also in the future. This development 
highlights the future importance of sawmills as a provider of by-products both for the 
bioenergy and material sector through the downstream wood flows. The main increase 
in  the  total  volume  of  industrial  by-products  is  expected  to  come  from  sawnwood 
production, which increases by almost 50% between 2010 and 2050. 

EU  pellet  imports  almost  double  between  2010  and  2030,  from  10  Mm3  to  19  Mm3, 
and  continue  to  increase,  albeit  with  a  slower  rate,  reaching  23  Mm3  in  20508.  The 
current  main  trade  partners,  USA,  Canada  and  the  area  of  the  former  Soviet  Union 
continue  as  important  pellet  trade  partners.  Additionally,  EU  imports  of  wood  pellets 
from Latin America and South-East Asia (Indonesia) increase significantly by 2050.  

In terms of land use on the EU28 level, SRC is projected to become a major source of 
biomass for bioenergy, increasing from negligible amounts in 2010 to 44 million m3 in 
2030, and further to 60 million m3 in 2050, which is 14% of all woody biomass used 
for  heat  and  power  production  in  2050,  and  more  than  50%  of  the  total  increase  of 
woody biomass use for energy from 2010 to 2050. An additional impact to that of the 
development of SRC, is that of a large intensification in the use of EU forests. The 
forest harvest level in the Baseline scenario is seen to increase from 556 million m3 to 
616  million  m3  (11%)  between  2010  and  2030,  and  reaches  a  harvest  level  of  648 
million m3 by 2050 (17% higher than in 2010).  

Also the EU net import of roundwood increases, from 25 Mm3 in 2010 to 33 Mm3 
in  2030  and  47  Mm3  in  2050.  This  development  results  mainly  from  increased 
production of woody materials, most profoundly sawnwood but also boards and pulp. 
The increase in the material sector is driven by the population and GDP projections in 
the  EU  and  RoW,  which  lead  to  growing  EU  consumption  of  woody  materials  and  EU 

8  Pellet  trade  is  here  presented  in  volume  of  solid  wood  equivalent  (SWE)  to  enable  comparison  with  the 

other feedstocks. In reality, pellet trade is reported in tons. 

January 2016  17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

exports  of  especially  sawnwood.  The  rapid  increase  of  bioenergy  demand 
between 2010 and 2030 is seen to also lead to some roundwood used directly 
for bioenergy; by 2050 the use of stemwood for energy is instead replaced by 
increasing SRC and pellet imports.  

3.2 Policy scenarios 
In  addition  to  the  Baseline  scenario,  four  policy  scenarios  were  developed.  Each  of 
these scenarios focus on a particular issue in bioenergy demand and trade of biomass. 
The main findings of these scenarios are highlighted here. 

The  development  seen  in  the  Baseline  scenario  is  found  to  be  accentuated  in  the  EU 
Emission  Reduction  scenario,  which  builds  on  the  policy  target  of  decreasing  the 
GHG  emissions  by  80%  by  2050  in  the  EU.  In  this  scenario,  the  development  of 
biomass  use  follows  that  of  the  Baseline  scenario  until  2030.  Thereafter,  the  results 
show  a  considerable  increase  in  the  use  of  imported  pellets  (52  Mm3  in  2050, 
double  to  that  in  the  Baseline),  SRC  (161  Mm3  in  2050,  almost  triple  compared  to 
Baseline),  and,  additionally,  we  see  also  large  quantities  of  roundwood  directly 
used  for  bioenergy  production  (78  million  m3  in  2050).  The  increased  use  of 
biomass  for  energy  has  a  direct  impact  on  forest  harvests,  which  are  more  than 
700 million m3 in the EU Emission Reduction scenario in 2050, almost 9% increase to 
the Baseline results for that year.  

Constant EU Bioenergy Demand scenario investigates the effects of a policies that 
increase  the  EU  bioenergy  demand  similarly  until  2020,  but  stay  constant  thereafter. 
As  the  population  and  GDP  development  is  still  projected  to  continue  as  in  Baseline, 
there  are  only  small  differences  between  this  scenario  and  the  Baseline  on  the 
material  production  side.  However,  there  is  a  clear  difference  in  the  composition  of 
feedstocks  used  for  energy  production.  Most  importantly,  there  is  only  little  pressure 
to  produce  SRC  for  energy.  The  policies  until  2020  require  an  increase  in  the 
production of SRC, but thereafter the bioenergy demand can be increasingly satisfied 
through  other  feedstocks.  Pellet  imports  increase  as  well  until  2020,  but  remain 
almost  constant  thereafter.  No  roundwood  is  used  directly  for  energy  in  this 
scenario. The development of heat and power technologies are projected to stagnate 
in this scenario, resulting in a higher level of firewood used for domestic heating than 
in  the  Baseline.  Compared  to  the  Baseline  scenario,  there  is  more  particleboard 
production  and  less  sawnwood  production  in  this  scenario.  As  the  demand  for 
industrial  by-products  from  sawmills  (chips  and  sawdust)  for  bioenergy  production  is 
lower,  the  profitability  of  sawmills  decreases,  leading  into  less  production.  On  the 
other  hand,  particleboard  production  using  this  feedstock  for  material  production 
becomes more profitable. Overall, the harvest level in the EU in 2050 is 15 million m3 
(2.3%) lower than in the Baseline. 

The  third  policy  scenario,  Increased  RoW  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario, 
investigates a future increase in the bioenergy demand in the RoW, together with an 
increase  in  the  EU  as  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario.  Most  importantly, 
countries  outside  of  EU  are  more  reliant  on  their  own  biomass  sources  to  fulfil  their 
own  increasing  bioenergy  demand.  Consequently,  this  scenario  depicts  a  situation 
where  EU  may  not  be  able  to  import  as  much  of  the  biomass  feedstocks  as  in  the 
other  scenarios.  Indeed,  the  results  show  that  with  an  increased  RoW  bioenergy 
increase, net EU import of wood pellets is only 39 million m3 in 2050, 25% less than in 
the EU Emission Reduction scenario. In addition, also EU roundwood imports decrease 
by more than 20%. This puts more pressure to the development of the SRC sector in 
the EU: in this scenario, the production of SRC in the EU28 is the highest of all 

January 2016  18 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

scenarios  at  172  million  m3  in  2050  (a  7%  increase  to  the  EU  Emission  Reduction 
scenario).  Material  production  levels  stay  at  almost  the  same  level  as  in  the  EU 
Emission  Reduction  scenario.  However,  as  EU  roundwood  imports  decrease,  the  EU 
forest harvest level increases to 718 million m3 in 2050 (14 Mm3 higher than in the 
EU Emission reduction scenario, and 162 Mm3, or 29%, higher than in 2010).  

The  fourth  policy  scenario,  Increased  EU  Biomass  Import  scenario,  investigates 
the  impact  of  increasing  EU  reliance  to  imported  biomass  resources  to  see  how 
domestic production reacts to decreased trade costs. Consequently, EU net import of 
roundwood  grows  to  71  Mm3  by  2050  (22%  increase  compared  to  the  EU  Emission 
Reduction scenario), and EU net import of pellets grows to 218 Mm3 (more than four 
times  the  amount  foreseen  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario).  Here,  the 
production of pellets in North America and especially USA will not be enough to satisfy 
the  pellet  demand  in  the  EU:  instead,  Latin  America  and  South-East  Asia  grow  into 
important  pellet  suppliers,  alongside  with  Canada  and  the  former  Soviet  Union. 
Following  the  growth  of  pellets  into  a  major  biomass  feedstock  for  energy,  domestic 
harvests  in  the  EU  will  only  increase  modestly  over  time  in  this  scenario.  While  the 
material  production  level  in  the  EU  grows  slightly  (especially  particleboard  and 
chemical  pulp  production),  the  harvest  level  is  only  624  Mm3  in  2050,  an  11% 
decrease to the EU Emission Reduction scenario and a 3.7% decrease to the Baseline 
scenario. 

3.3 Analysis of model assumptions 
In  addition  to  the  analysis  of  the  various  scenarios,  central  modelling  assumptions 
were  assessed  in  the  case  of  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario.  The  analysis 
highlights  the  increasing  future  connectivity  between  the  use  of  SRC,  pellets,  and 
forest-based  industrial  by-products.  In  particular,  the  analysis  highlighted  a  high 
substitution effect between SRC production and pellets import as of 2030 and 
2050.  In  other  words,  it  is  expected  that  if  SRC  production  decreases,  then  a  large 
share of the resulting gap of feedstock needed for energy purposes will be fulfilled by 
pellet imports, and vice versa.  

At  the  same  time,  the  model  predicts  that  the  cascading  and  multiple  use  of  wood 
through  the  value  chains  of  the  forest-based  industries  and  bioenergy  sector  will 
increase  from  2010  until  2030,  but  decrease  as  of  2050.  The  decrease  in  the 
cascading  use  of  wood  after  2030  results  mainly  from  the  large  quantities  of 
roundwood  directly  used  for  bioenergy  production  as  seen  in  the  Emission  Reduction 
scenario. After 2030, demand for woody biomass  in the bioenergy sector is projected 
to  increase  more  than  the  intensification  in  the  use  of  industrial  by-products  for 
material and energy purposes.  

Two  potential  policies  to  increase  the  cascading  use  of  wood  were  evaluated.  The 
analysis  shows  that  an  increasing  use  of  recovered  wood  for  material 
production  has  the  additional  benefit  of  decreasing  the  production  of  SRC  in 
the EU28, as well as EU-imports of wood pellets from RoW. On the other hand, 
while  a  tax  directly  related  to  the  energy  use  of  virgin  use  of  wood  would  nominally 
increase the cascading use of wood, it would also lead to an increasing amount of land 
dedicated to the production of SRC within the EU28 and an increasing import of pellets 
from the RoW. 

January 2016  19 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

4.  Models 

4.1 Overview of the applied integrated framework 
At the center of the analysis for this study are two modeling tools that are developed 
and  run  by  IIASA:  an  economic  land  use  model  GLOBIOM9  that  will  be  utilized 
together with a detailed forestry sector model G4M10. 

GLOBIOM  is  an  economic  model  that  jointly  covers  the  forest,  agricultural,  livestock, 
and bioenergy sectors, allowing it to consider a range of direct and indirect causes of 
biomass  use.  The  wood  demand  estimated  by  GLOBIOM  is  used  as  input  in  G4M,  a 
detailed agent-based forestry model that models the impact of wood demand in terms 
of  forestry  activities  (afforestation,  deforestation,  and  forest  management)  and  the 
resulting  biomass  and  carbon  stocks.  In  essence,  G4M  is  a  geographically  explicit 
model  which  in  combination  with  GLOBIOM  helps  to  evaluate  changes  in  national 
silvicultural forest practices related to changing demand and price information. 

Both  GLOBIOM  and  G4M  rely  on  input  data  that  describe  production,  trade,  and 
demand in a base year, which are used to calibrate the model. In this study, the data 
provided  in  Task  1  will  be  used  as  such  input  data,  allowing  us  to  i)  gain  knowledge 
about  the  current  "state  of  play"  of  biomass  use  so  that  differences  over  time  and 
between scenarios can be assessed and ii) ensure that the models are well calibrated 
to produce robust results. 

The  information  between  the  GLOBIOM  and  G4M  models  is  circulated  between 
modeling levels (economic land use and detailed forest sector models) iteratively. The 
baseline development and all scenarios will be built on flows of data and information in 
a specific order that is summarized below: 
  Prior to the baseline calculation, GLOBIOM receives data from G4M on forest 

management parameters (e.g., forest increment, harvesting costs, management 
intensification possibilities), forest area, protected areas, initial NPV of agricultural 
land, initial wood prices; 

  Similarly, EPIC11 delivers potential yields of a large variety of crops that can be 

grown for food, feed, and bioenergy production; 

  After baseline calculations in GLOBIOM that include global competition of world 

regions and EU countries for different commodities, the model returns to G4M total 
timber production (domestic), and land and wood prices; 

  G4M then computes change in forest area (e.g., afforestation/ deforestation/ 

intensification) and carbon stock. 

With this set up, the G4M model serve also as a downscaling tool from the economic 
land use model to provide detailed analysis of impacts on forest carbon stock changes 
and  other  GHG  emissions.  This  ensures  that  important  details  of  specific  sector 
characteristics are included in projections and in the analysis of the scenarios. On the 
other  hand,  it’s  the  role  of  GLOBIOM  to  put  biomass  uses  into  competition  with  each 
other (e.g. competing between forest based industries and the bioenergy sector)  and 
with other ecosystem services. GLOBIOM  also ensures a consistent embedding of the 
analysis in global scenarios. 

9 See also: www.iiasa.ac.at./GLOBIOM 
10 See also: www.iiasa.ac.at/G4M 
11 See also: www.iiasa.ac.at/EPIC 

January 2016  20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

4.2 Input data from Task 1 
In  this  study,  year  2010  is  used  as  a  starting  point  for  the  analysis.  The  GLOBIOM 
description  of  2010  was  complemented  with  data  and  analysis  derived  from  Task  1. 
This  data  involves  relevant  international  statistics  (e.g.,  EUROSTAT,  FAO,  JWEE), 
national  reporting,  and  other  publicly  available  databases.  This  chapter  provides  an 
overview of the key information from Task 1 that was integrated into GLOBIOM within 
this study. 

Initial capacities of forest based industries 

GLOBIOM  covers  the  production  of  the  following  forest  industrial  products:  chemical 
pulp, mechanical pulp, sawnwood, plywood, fiberboard, and wood pellets. On a global 
scale, initial capacities of the forest industries producing these commodities are based 
on  the  production  quantities  from  FAOSTAT.  That  is,  production  capacities  for  2010 
are  assumed  to  be  equivalent  to  production  for  the  same  year  and  no  unused 
capacities  are  considered  to  be  available.  More  detailed  data  concerning  the 
production capacities of the forest based industries as collected in Task 1 was applied 
to  provide  more  detailed  information  on  the  EU  level.  Still,  no  overcapacity  was 
assumed for EU, in order to provide consistency with the global assumptions. 

Household fuelwood (firewood) consumption 

Production of fuelwood is a large cause of harvesting operations within the EU as well 
as  globally.  GLOBIOM  covers  household  fuelwood,  and  initial  national  consumption 
levels  are  specified  based  on  FAOSTAT  figures.  However,  fuelwood  consumption  is 
generally considered highly uncertain as all sources of consumption do not show up in 
statistics, and as reporting is not consistently applied on a global level. To improve the 
estimate  of  the  fuelwood  consumption  level  for  EU  and  refine  the  representation  of 
how forests are being used in this study, we applied the numbers estimated in Task 1 
for  EU27,  which  are  based  on  data  from  the  Joint  Wood  Energy  Enquiry  (JWEE)  and 
National Statistics. For countries outside of EU, FAOSTAT numbers were used. There is 
also recent development of private households shifting to pellet consumption replacing 
the  traditional  collected  firewood.  Such  a  shift  in  consumption  patterns  and  its  direct 
and indirect effects are not taken into account within the framework of this project. 

Collecting of forest residues and forest chips 

Collecting  of  forest  residues  (e.g.  leftover  branches,  stumps  and  stem  tops  from 
logging operations) and producing forest chips on the logging site is becoming a large 
source  of  wood  for  energy  production  in  a  number  of  countries.  However,  not  all 
countries  collect  and  report  national 
information  about  the  production  and 
consumption of forest chips, making consistent global information sources scarce. For 
this study, we applied the estimates as provided in Task 1 based on the compilation of 
national  statistics  and  JWEE  reporting.  That  is,  harvesting  of  forest  chips  within 
GLOBIOM  was  baselined  for  2010  according  to  the  estimates  provided  in  the  Task  1 
report. With this approach, the major consumer countries of forest chips within EU27 
are  represented  as  accurately  as  possible.  For  countries  which  where  not  covered  in 
the Task 1 report, expert estimates of harvesting of forest chips were used. 

Production of industrial by-products 

The GLOBIOM model covers the production of four main types of by-products from the 
forest-based  processing  industry:  sawdust,  bark,  wood  chips,  and  black  liquor.  Data 
concerning the supply and consumption of these commodities was reported in Task 1 
and  applied  here  to  provide  a  baseline  for  2010.  The  data  was  used  to  define  a 
baseline  of  the  national  supply  of  each  by-product  as  well  as  consumption  for  the 
various  end-use  segments.  That  is,  the  national  input-output  coefficients  of  the 

January 2016  21 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

industrial processing technologies where adapted to fit with the data  reported in Task 
1.  

No  learning  in  terms  of  technical  conversion  technologies  (input-output  coefficients) 
was applied across the range of forest based industrial production technologies.  

Recovered wood 

GLOBIOM  has  been  extended  within  the  project  to  cover  recovered  wood  (e.g.  wood 
from used packaging material, scrap timber from building sites, wood from demolition 
projects)  used  for  production  of  wood  based  panels  and/or  energy  purposes.  Data 
concerning  the  availability  and  consumption  of  recovered  wood  as  collected  within 
Task  1  was  applied  to  provide  a  baseline  for  2010.  The  national-specific  share 
concerning the use of recovered wood between forest-based industries and the energy 
sector  as  specified  in  the  Task  1  report  was  also  applied  into  GLOBIOM.  For  all 
countries for which no national specific data could be provided within Task 1, average 
availability and consumption numbers were applied based on expert estimates.   

However, it is worth to notice here that there are large uncertainties surrounding the 
future  sourcing  of  wood  for  the  bioenergy  sector  in  terms  of  how  much  wood  can  be 
provided  from  forest  residues,  forest-based  industrial  by-products,  recovered  wood, 
and  the  direct  sourcing  of  roundwood  from  harvesting  operations  to  energy 
production. 

SRC and ligno-cellulosic biomass 

The land potentially available for the biomass production from Short Rotation Coppice 
(e.g.  willow,  poplar)  and  ligno-cellulosic  biomass  (e.g.  miscanthus  and  reed  canary 
grass) is in GLOBIOM the same as that of the 2014 IA report. Initial land use is within 
the  model  set  according  to  CORINE/PELCOM  land  cover  estimates  for  EU  and  the 
Global Land Cover 2000 (GLC 2000). These sources of information provide an accurate 
baseline  for  the  year  2000  according  to  which  GLOBIOM  can  be  calibrated.  Note 
though that the use of  agricultural land for the production of SRC and  ligno-cellulosic 
biomass  is  highly  driven  by  the  bioenergy  demand,  which  is  set  according  to  the 
PRIMES and POLES estimates. 

Cost structures for SRC and ligno-cellulosic biomass in GLOBIOM are also the same as 
those of the 2014 IA report. Calculated plantation costs involve the establishment cost 
and  the  harvesting  cost.  The  establishment  related  capital  cost  includes  only  sapling 
cost  for  manual  planting  (Carpentieri  et  al.,  199312;  Herzogbaum  GmbH,  200813). 
Labour requirements for plantation establishment are based on Jurvelius (1997)14, and 
consider  land  preparation,  saplings  transport,  planting  and  fertilization.  These  labour 
requirements  are  adjusted  for  temperate  and  boreal  regions  to  take  into  account  the 
different  site  conditions.  The  average  wages  for  planting  are  obtained  from  ILO 

12  Carpentieri,  A.E.,  Larson,  E.D.,  Woods,  J.,  1993.  Future  biomass-based  electricity  supply  in  Northeast 

Brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy 4, 149–173. 

13 Herzogbaum GmbH, 2008. Forstpflanzen-Preisliste 2008. HERZOG.BAUM Samen & Pflanzen GmbH. 

Koaserbauerstr. 10, A _ 4810 Gmunden, Austria. Available from: /www.energiehoelzer.atS) 
14 Jurve, M., 1997. Labor-intensive harvesting of tree plantations in the southern Philippines. Forest 

harvesting case-study 9. RAP publication: 1997/41, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations 

January 2016  22 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

(2007)15.  For  further  details  about  cost  and  yield  assumption  for  SRC,  we  refer  to 
Havlík et al. (2011)16. 

Cropping residues, residues from livestock, and biogenic waste 

The  Task  1  report  provided  information  concerning  the  supply  and  demand  of  a 
number  of  sources  of  agricultural  and  waste  related  biomass  feedstocks  that  can  be 
used for the production of heat, electricity, and biofuels. A number of national specific 
sources  were  available  that  cover  cropping  residues,  residues  from  the  livestock 
sector, paper and cardboard waste, sewage sludge, textile waste, bio-waste, and food 
waste.  The  availability  of  these  feedstocks  are  taken  into  account  in  the  GLOBIOM 
modelling framework as well as the full range of technological pathways available for 
their  conversion  to  heat,  electricity,  and  biofuels.  However,  the  PRIMES  feedstock 
specific  demand  pathways  will  be  applied  for  these  biomass  resources  as  that  of  the 
scenarios  of  the  2014  IA  report.  That  is,  the  demand  of  these  commodities  for 
bioenergy  production  are  strictly  kept  to  that  of  the  PRIMES  estimates  and  we  make 
no attempt to assess the competitiveness of these feedstocks against each other, nor 
other potential biomass sources. 

4.3 Bioenergy demand projections 
Within this project, all bioenergy demand projections for heat, electricity and transport 
are exogenously defined and not evaluated within the used modelling framework. The 
project makes no attempt to estimate future bioenergy demand levels. For EU28, the 
same  bioenergy  demand  projects  as  estimated  by  PRIMES  for  the  EU  Reference 
Scenario3  and  GHG40/EE  scenario  as  specified  in  the  2014  IA  report4  were  taken  as 
the basis for the various scenarios. An overview of the demand projections for the two 
EU28 bioenergy demand scenarios is provided below in Table 2. For the Rest of the 
World (RoW), this project uses the solid and liquid bioenergy demand projections as 
presented in the latest 2015 GECO POLES  report7. As a basis for the scenarios within 
this  project,  the  baseline  and  Global  Mitigation  Scenario  projections  will  be  used  for 
the  RoW.  It  should  be  noted  that  these  are  not  the  same  bioenergy  demand 
projections for RoW as used for the 2014 IA report4. 

For each individual EU Member State, GLOBIOM takes the demand projections of each 
PRIMES  biomass  feedstock  directly  as  input.  Furthermore,  import  to  EU28  from  RoW 
of  biomass  feedstocks  directly  for  bioenergy  production  (heat,  electricity  and 
transport)  is  also  taken  as  input  to  GLOBIOM  from  PRIMES.  The  GLOBIOM  model 
thereafter  makes  sure  that  the  trade  and  production  of  each  feedstock  for  the 
bioenergy  sector  is  equal  or  higher  than  that  given  by  PRIMES.  The  bioenergy 
demand  is  expressed  within  the  model  as  a  hard  constraint  that  always  has 
to be fulfilled. That is, the model makes sure that  the bioenergy demand is fulfilled 
even if it reduces the availability of biomass resources for other purposes.  

15 ILO, 2007. Occupational Wages and Hours of Work and Retail Food Prices, Statistics from the ILO October 
Inquiry. International Labor Organisation, ISBN: 9220201747 Available from: /http://laborsta.ilo.org/S 
16 Havlík P, et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets.  Energy Policy 

(2011) 39:5690-5702. 

January 2016  23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Table  2:  Biomass  demand  for  energy  purposes  as  of  the  2014  IA  for  EU28  (Mtoe). 
Note that the category “crops” in this table both covers domestic biomass used for the 
production of heat, electricity, and biofuels. 

Domestic production biomass feedstock (Mtoe) 

of which: forestry  
of which: crops 
of which: agricultural residues 
of which: waste 
of which: other (i.e. black liquor) 

2005 

2030 

Ref 

GHG40/EE 

87 

33 
4 
12 
28 
9 

194 

191 

48 
65 
16 
47 
17 

48 
59 
16 
47 
21 

Source: European Commission. Impact Assessment: Accompanying the Communication A policy 
framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030. (2014).  

For the 2014 IA, the PRIMES-estimated domestic production of biomass feedstocks for 
bioenergy  production  were  used  as  input  to  the  GLOBIOM  model.  It  should  be  noted 
that  the  split  between  the  various  feedstock  categories  in  the  2014  IA  was  strictly 
enforced within GLOBIOM, meaning that no substitution was allowed between the use 
of forestry biomass, lignocellulose perennials grown on agricultural land, and biomass 
produced  from  Short  Rotation  Coppice  (SRC).  As  such,  the  biomass  demand  for 
energy purposes for each feedstock was fixed and the shares could not change. In this 
project,  this  constraint  was  released,  allowing  for  full  substitution  potential  between 
forest,  SRC,  and  industrial  by-products  from  the  forest  sector.  This  change  in 
assumptions from the modelling of the 2014 IA report provides information concerning 
feedstock  competitiveness  and  allows  full  analysis  of  the  balance  between  feedstock 
supply  assumptions  and  demand.  The  constraint  was  however  maintained  in  this 
project for cropping residues, residues from the livestock sector, paper and cardboard 
waste,  sewage  sludge,  textile  waste,  bio-waste,  and  food  waste  as  well  as  demand 
and supply of biofuels for transport applications.  

For  the  2014  IA,  the  PRIMES-estimated  trade  of  biomass  feedstocks  between  EU28 
and the RoW for bioenergy production (heat, electricity, and transport) was also used 
as  input  to  the  GLOBIOM  model.  Trade  of  feedstocks  was  for  the  2014  IA  strictly 
enforced  within  GLOBIOM  so  that  the  amount  of  trade  matched  the  estimates  by 
PRIMES.  For  this  project,  the  trade  of  feedstocks  for  biofuel  production  and  trade  of 
biofuels  (conventional  biodiesel  and  bioethanol)  between  EU28  and  RoW  was  kept 
fixed according to the estimated by PRIMES. On the other hand, trade constraints for 
solid  biomass  for  electricity  and  heat  production  were  released,  thereby  allowing 
GLOBIOM  to  estimate  the  trade  of  each  wood  biomass  feedstock  between  EU28  and 
RoW.   

A  detailed  overview  of  how  the  bioenergy  demands  estimated  in  the  2014  IA  report 
were treated within the GLOBIOM model is provided in Annex I. 

4.4 Trade assumptions concerning wood biomass 
As  the  representation  of  the  forest  materials  and  the  forest  sector  has  been  updated 
for the ReceBio project, trade assumptions concerning the use  of these new products 
have  also  been  updated.  Figure  1  shows  the  setup  for  the  trade  of  primary  woody 
products  modelled  in  the  GLOBIOM  model  framework  for  the  ReceBio  project.  Here, 
the category “Traded product” covers only the traded primary woody products, namely 
chips for material use, pellets, and roundwood. Firewood trade is included only within 

January 2016  24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

the EU28 to stabilize results as this biomass source is not substantially traded between 
regions  (FAOSTAT17).  No  trade  of  harvest  residues  is  modelled  in  the  project  as  we 
currently do not consider this being traded due to a lack of reliable data to harmonize 
the  trade  flows.  The  trade  of  semi-finished  forest  products  is  described  later  in  this 
document. 

Figure 1. Trade of primary woody biomass between EU28 and the RoW as considered 
in the model, showing the source of the traded products and the end use. Note that no 
trade outside of the EU is modelled for firewood. Also, the trade of chips accounts for 
chips used for material purposes only; the model assumes that all particles traded for 
energy use are traded in pelletized form. 

Key assumptions 

  SRC and eucalyptus plantations can both be used for the production of chips for 

material use and pellets for energy use.  

  Pellets are within the model allowed to be produced from industrial by-

products, SRC and eucalyptus plantations. These conversion pathways are 
accounted for to allow for future developments and changes in pathways. 
Roundwood is modelled to not be eligible as a production feedstock for pellets 
due to the lack of reliable data of the current use of this source of wood for 
production of pellets.   

  Firewood is only allowed to be traded between EU 28 countries. Currently, 

there is some existing trade between RoW countries, but its value is very small 
due to the bulkiness of firewood and its low price. In the model, we include 
trade within the EU 28 to allow for small countries with small forest areas to 
continue to trade firewood for household energy needs.  

17 FAOstat. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/F/FT/E 

January 2016  25 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

  Harvesting residues (branches, tops, etc.) are not allowed to be traded 

between regions within the model framework. This is both due to lack of 
statistics of trade and the relative small amounts that are being traded.  

Overview of trade representation in GLOBIOM  

International  trade  of  the  considered  feedstocks,  processed,  and  final  commodities 
from  the  forest,  agriculture,  and  livestock  sectors  are  computed  endogenously  within 
the  GLOBIOM  model  between  geographical  regions.  Trade  of  commodities  is  as  such 
modelled  following  the  spatial  equilibrium  approach  so  that  bilateral  trade  flows 
between  individual  regions  can  be  traced  for  each  commodity.  This  approach  applies 
both  to  feedstocks  commodities  (crops,  residues,  co-products)  from  the  forest, 
agricultural,  and  livestock  sector,  as  well  as  to  semi-finished  and  final  end-use 
products  (wood,  conventional  and  advanced  biofuels).  Trade  is  furthermore  based 
purely on cost competitiveness as goods are assumed to be homogenous. This implies 
that  imported  goods  and  domestic  goods  are  assumed  to  be  identical  and  the  only 
differences  in  their  prices  are  due  to  the  trading  costs.  There  are  two  components  in 
international  trading  costs  in  the  model:  international  transportation  costs  which  are 
mainly computed based on distance, and tariffs (Figure 2). 

Within the model, 2000 year bilateral trade flows are first taken from  BACI database 
which is an initiative of the CEPII (Gaulier and Zignago, 200818) to provide reconciled 
values and quantities of COMTRADE annual trade statistics at the HS6 product level19. 
A  trade  calibration  method  (Jansson  and  Heckelei,  200920)  is  applied  to  reconcile 
bilateral  trade  flows  with  net  trade  as  computed  as  the  difference  between  the 
production  in  a  region  minus  all  domestic  uses  reported  by  the  FAO.  In  addition,  the 
trade calibration approach ensures that when two regions trade together, their prices 
only  differ  by  the  trading  costs  for  the  base  year  of  2000.  After  2000,  the  model  is 
freely  allowed  to  elaborate  on  future  trade  flows.  For  this,  non-linear  trade  costs  are 
assumed when trade increase with the amount of traded quantities.  

Figure 2. Price determination in the context of international trade in GLOBIOM.  

18  Fontagné  L.,  Gaulier  G.  &  Zignago  S.  (2008),  "Specialization  across  Varieties  and  North-South 

Competition", Economic Policy, 2008, pp. 51-91 

19 BACI provides the historically trade flows where the trade between countries is fully reconciled such that 
reported  imports  for  country  A  from  country  B,  fully  match  that  of  reported  export  from  country  B  to 
country A. 

20 Jansson, T., Heckelei, T., 2009. A new estimator for trade costs and its small sample properties. Economic 

Modelling 26 (2), 489–498. 

January 2016  26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

4.5 Definitions 
The FAO FRA definition is used when classifying land as forest, not including land that 
has trees on it but is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use (FAO 201221). 
Protected  forests  (as  defined  by  WDPA  Consortium  200422)  are  excluded  from  the 
analysis  and  no  conversion  or  use  of  protected  forest  is  allowed.  Forest  that  is  not 
protected  is  considered  as  forests  available  for  wood  supply.  The  model  allocates 
harvests to this area so that the projected demand for wood for material and energy 
purposes  will  be  satisfied.  These  forests  include  natural  and  semi-natural  forests,  as 
well  as  forest  plantations.  In  this  project,  we  classify  these  forests  as  unused  and 
used  forests,  depending  on  whether  they  contribute  to  the  wood  supply  or  not. 
Unused  forests  do  currently  not  contribute  to  wood  supply,  based  on  economic 
decision  rules  in  the  model.  However,  they  may  still  be  a  source  for  collection  and 
production of non-wood goods (e.g. food, wild game, ornimental plants). Forests that 
are  used  in  a  certain  period  to  meet  the  wood  demand,  so–called  used  forests,  are 
modelled to be managed for woody biomass production. This implies a certain rotation 
time, thinning events and final harvest.  

Examples of used forests are: 

  A  forest  that  is  actively  managed  (through  thinning  or  clearcut  activities  etc.) 
on  a  regular  basis  and the  wood  is  collected  for  subsistence  use  or  to  be  sold 
on markets. 

  A  forest  that  has  been  regenerated  (either  by  direct  planting  or  natural  re-
growth)  after  harvesting  and  where  the  forest  is  intended  to  be  actively 
managed in the future and the collected wood to be sold on market. 

  A forest used on a regular basis for collection of firewood for subsistence use or 

to be sold on markets.   

  A forest concession or community forest used for collection of wood for export 

and/or domestic markets. 

The  model  allows  for  conversion  from  used  forests  to  unused,  and  unused  to  used 
forests.  Initial selection of used and unused forest areas  is done in G4M according to 
an  approach  described  in  Kindermann  et  al.  200823  and  based  on  a  global  map  of 
human  influence  (see  CIESIN  (2002)24).  In  its  core,  the  map  of  human  influence  is 
created  through  overlaying  global  data  layers.  Data  describing  human  population 
pressure  (population  density/population  settlements),  human 
land  use  and 
infrastructure  (built  up  areas,  night-time  lights,  land  use/land  cover),  and  human 
access  (coastlines,  roads,  railroads,  navigable  rivers)  are  jointly  combined  to  create 
the map of human influence.  

Agricultural  land  includes  cropland,  grazing  land,  short  rotation  coppice  and  other 
natural vegetation. Cropland is land used for crop production. This also includes set-
aside  areas  declared  as  cropland,  but  not  currently  used  for  crop  harvesting  (e.g. 
fallow  land).  This  land  category  also  includes  annual  and  perennial  lignocellulosic 
plants (e.g. miscanthus and switchgrass) that  may be used for bioenergy and  biofuel 

21 FAO 2012. FRA 2015 – Terms and definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180.  
22  WDPA  Consortium,  2004:  World  Database  on  Protected  Areas.  Copyright  World  Conservation  Union 

(IUCN) and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 

23 Kindermann GE, McCallum I, Fritz S, Obersteiner M. A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon 

map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fennica (2008) 42:387. 

24 CIESIN. 2002. Last of the Wild Project, Version 1 (LWP-1): Global Human Footprint. Dataset 

(Geographic).Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Center for International Earth Science 
Information Network (CIESIN), Palisades, NY. 

January 2016  27 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

production. Short rotation coppices are formed by tree plantations established and 
managed  under  an  intensive,  short-rotation  regime  on  agricultural land.  They  can  be 
established  with  quickly  growing  species  such  as  poplar  and  willow,  and  managed 
under  a  coppice  system  in  a  two-to-five-year  rotation.  Grazing  land  contains  of 
pasture lands used for ruminant grazing. It does not include natural grasslands. Other 
natural vegetation or other natural land is a category that includes a mixture of land 
that cannot be properly classified such as unused cropland (if not fallow) or grassland, 
including natural grasslands.  

In  addition  to  these  classes,  GLOBIOM  also  identifies  other  agricultural  land  (e.g. 
vegetable  production,  vineyards,  orchards),  settlements  and  wetlands.  This  land  use 
class is for this project kept fixed over time in all scenarios. 

January 2016  28 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

5.  Baseline Scenario  

5.1 Storyline 
The reference point of the assessment is a baseline scenario that is designed to be as 
comparable as possible to the EU Reference Scenario3 used in the 2014 IA report4. The 
baseline  scenario  depicts  the  same  development  as  the  reference  scenario  and  is 
based  on  the  same  underlying  assumptions  concerning  socio-economic  growth  and 
policy  targets  for  EU28.  The  underlying  goal  of  the  baseline  scenario  is  to  provide  a 
projection of what the world could look like in the future if our policies continue in line 
with  historical  trends.  For  this,  the  scenario  is  based  upon  the  latest  available 
statistics, policies in place today, and the latest projections of key parameters such as 
population  growth,  energy  prices  and  macro-economic  development.  The  goal  of  the 
baseline  scenario  is  to  depict  a  future  with  continued  increasing  global  population, 
intermediate  economic  developments  including  consideration  to  EU’s  economic 
downturn, and ongoing development of international fuel prices. Moreover, it portrays 
a  future  in  which  consumption  patterns  of  food,  fibre,  and  fuels  continue  to  evolve 
over time following current trends.  

information 

The baseline scenario was slightly adjusted from that of the EU Reference Scenario of 
the 2014 IA study to provide a scenario that is consistent with the  aim of this study. 
The  main  underlying  socio-economic 
(GDP  growth,  population 
development, fossil fuel prices etc.), consumption patterns of commodities, land cover 
information,  trade,  and  total  bioenergy  demand  will  be  the  same  between  this  study 
and the 2014 IA report. However, differences apply due to the use of updated data as 
collected within Task 1 of the project (state  of  wood-processing industries, bioenergy 
production from lignocellulosic biomass, biomass feedstock availability, cost and prices 
of biomass resources etc.) and model developments as performed within Task 3 of the 
project (disaggregation of wood and agricultural commodities, separation of bioenergy 
demand, in depth representation of the flow of commodities between industries, etc.). 
These changes may impact aspects such as forest harvest projections as the demand 
of wood for material and energy purposes can represented with a higher detail. Also, 
the  production  and  use  of  biomass  feedstock  between  alternative  purposes  can  be 
affected,  particularly  for  resources  that  are  highly  market  driven.  Further  differences 
between this study and that of the 2014 IA report are explained in brief below, and in 
more detail in the Annex II.  

The baseline scenario also considers the same range of policy targets as assumed for 
the  EU  Reference  Scenario.  It  takes  into  account  a  broad  range  of  policy 
commitments, currently implemented policies, legislations and targets that have been 
announced by countries and adopted by late spring 2012. Key policies for the EU that 
will be considered include the EU  ETS Directive (2009/29/EC), the Renewable Energy 
Directive  (2009/28/EC),  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (2001/27/EU),  and  GHG  Effort 
Sharing decision (No 406/2009/EC)25. From 2012 onwards, no changes in policies are 
assumed  and  no  new  policies  are  considered.  This  implies  that  only  already  agreed 
policies  in  the  context  of  the  2020  package  will  be  accounted  for.  Regulatory  policy 
instruments are maintained unchanged over time and no new targets or strategies are 
assumed  to  come  into  play.  Resulting  of  these  policies,  and  as  estimated  for  the  EU 
Reference Scenario, the renewable energy share (RES) in the EU28 would account for 

25 See (Commission, 2014) for a full overview of all policies as considered in the scenario. 

January 2016  29 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

a  24.4%  share  of  gross  final  energy  consumption  by  2030,  and  28.7%  in  2050. 
Biomass  plays  an  important  role  in  this  trend  and  demand  for  biomass  increases 
significantly from 2010 until 2020, after which demand increases at a slow pace until 
2050. 

Furthermore,  the  baseline  has  been  developed  along  the  lines  of  a  limited  global 
climate  action,  where  non-EU  regions  provide  a  restricted  amount  of  actions  for 
reducing  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions.  All  Copenhagen  and  Cancun  pledges  are 
assumed  to  be  followed,  but  no  significant  additional  policy  actions  from  non-EU 
regions  are  assumed  to  be  put  forward  thereafter.  For  EU,  only  GHG  emission 
reduction  targets  and  renewable  energy  targets  up  to  2020  are  accounted  for  in  the 
baseline scenario.  

The analysis will account for the impact of emissions connected to land use, land use 
change and forestry (LULUCF), but there is no feedback loop from LULUCF emissions 
to policy targets in play. 

5.2 Main underlying assumptions 

Assumptions in line with those in the EU Reference Scenario 

  Global population growth and GDP projections until 2050 are exogenously assumed 

to develop over time.  

  GDP for EU28 is expected to rise to 1.5% pa in 2010-20, 1.6% pa in 2020-30, and 

1.4% pa in 2030-50. EU population is projected to increase up until 2040 and 
thereafter slightly decline, mainly due to decreasing net inward migration to EU. See 
Commission, 2014 for a full detailed description of assumptions concerning the 
development of socio-economic parameters. 

  Bioenergy demand (heat, electricity, and biofuels) in EU28 evolves throughout the 
projection period in accordance with the EU Reference Scenario. Demands for all 
countries, regions, and years are implemented in the model as minimum 
constraints, meaning that a country can produce more but not less biomass for 
energy use than prescribed (e.g. not price elastic). By doing this it is assured that 
the production of biomass in the EU is achieved, but also allowing for flexibility to 
produce more if demanded, e.g. through international trade. Other (non-energy) 
wood products are competing for the wood resource. Further details of how the 
bioenergy demands are taken into account within the GLOBIOM framework are 
specified in Annex I. 

  Demand of other wood products is globally assumed to stay constant over time and 
does not change due to price or demand fluctuations. The category is defined in 
accordance with the FAOSTAT category with the same name and includes 
“roundwood that will be used for poles, piling, posts, fencing, pitprops, tanning, 
distillation and match blocks”. The 2010 regional consumption levels are taken from 
the FAOSTAT statistics. 

  Only those sustainability criteria for biofuels, solid and gaseous biomass that were 

assumed in the 2014 IA report are assumed to affect the development of the 
bioenergy sector and demand for bioenergy. These include (i) sustainable forest 
management practices that enhance forest productivity; (ii) minimization of process 
chain emissions; and (iii) efficient use of biomass to displace greenhouse gas–

January 2016  30 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

intensive fuels. See the 2014 IA report4 for further details considering the 
underlying assumptions.  

  Land cover for EU28 is based on the CORINE/PELCOM cover maps for the base year 

of 2000. For the rest of the World, GLC 2000 is used. 

  No technical progress or improvement in efficiency is assumed for production of 

harvested woody products (HWP) or harvesting of forest biomass. Investment costs 
for new production capacities and conversion efficiencies of wood-processing 
industries as well as harvesting costs therefore remain constant over time. 

  Agricultural and forestry production does not expand into protected areas; however, 

land conversion can occur on unprotected areas. 

  Demand for food and fibre is driven by human population growth and changing GDP. 

Demand for commodities is price elastic and therefore changes depending on 
consumers’ willingness to pay. Demand is modelled through the use of constant 
elasticity functions which are parameterized by consumption quantities from 
EUROSTAT and FAOSTAT data on price and quantities. Own price elasticity for 
woody biomass commodities are based on Buongiorno et al. (2003), and price 
elasticity for agricultural commodities based on Seale et al. (2003). Historical data 
on production and prices of commodities (agricultural and forestry) was collected 
from individual country submissions, FAOSTAT, and EUROSTAT. From these 
statistics, values for the year 2000 are taken into account in the GLOBIOM 
modelling framework. Estimates for the years 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050 are 
results from the model projections.  

  Trade of commodities26 between EU Member State and RoW is endogenously 

estimated by the GLOBIOM modelling framework. Current forest management and 
rotation periods as globally estimated by the G4M model are applied (Kindermann et 
al., 2008b). Rotation periods and management, however, adapt over time to 
demand changes to maximize forest net present value (NPV) estimates. Age class 
structural developments are also accounted for both in terms of NPV estimations 
and potential harvest rates.  

  Demand for first and second generation biofuel within EU28 develop over time until 

2050 following the EU Reference Scenario. 

  Energy savings are projected to develop in line with the EU Reference Scenario, 

reaching -21% in 2030 compared to the 2007 Baseline projections. 

  Although the GHG target does also imply changes for the energy and transport 

sectors, these sectors are not explicitly covered by the chosen modelling framework 
and as such does not change assumptions used within the GLOBIOM modelling 
framework. 

Assumptions differing from the EU Reference Scenario  

  Population growth and GDP projections for the rest of the World have been updated 

to develop according to the 2015 GECO POLES baseline scenario7.  

  For this study, the representation of the forest-based industries and woody 

commodities has been further disaggregated from what was considered for the EU 

26  This  includes  agricultural  and  forestry  products  both  in  terms  of  feedstocks  (e.g.  industrial  roundwood) 

and wood products (e.g. sawnwood). 

January 2016  31 

 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Reference Scenario. For the EU Reference Scenario, five primary products were 
considered (pulp logs, saw logs, biomass for energy, traditional fuel wood, and other 
industrial logs), all inherently consumed by industrial energy, cooking fuel demand, 
or processed and sold on the market as final products (wood pulp and sawnwood). 
In this study, a number of primary products (harvesting residues), industrial by-
products have been disaggregated (sawdust, sawchips, black liquor), and semi-
finished woody products have also be added (fibreboard, plywood, wood pellets). 
This allows for more detailed representation of the demand development for specific 
wood commodities as well as the flow of commodities between industries.  

  Household fuelwood (firewood) consumption for EU28 is assumed to develop over 

time according to PRIMES estimates of the development of the bioenergy production 
through Small Scale Solid conversion units. Data from Task 1 is used for 
consumption levels for the year 2010, after which the use of firewood decreases if 
large scale conversion units are installed and district heating networks are 
developed. Both increasing and decreasing demand of firewood is considered in line 
with PRIMES estimated development of Small Scale Solid conversion units. Firewood 
consumption for the rest of the World follows the POLES projections. 

  Trade of household fuelwood (firewood) between EU Member States has been added 
to the GLOBIOM model framework for this project. Currently, some trade also exist 
between other countries/regions but its value is relative small due to the bulkiness 
of firewood and its low price (FAOstat). In the GLOBIOM model framework, trade 
within the EU28 has been included to allow for small countries with small forest 
areas to continue to trade firewood for household energy needs. 

  Trade of wood chips for material use and wood pellets for energy use has also been 
incorporated into the GLOBIOM modelling framework. It is assumed that SRC and 
eucalyptus plantations can both be used for the production of chips for material use 
and wood pellets. Trade of harvesting residues (branches, tops, etc.) is not 
considered within the model framework. 

  Wood chips as traded are restricted to be only used for material production 

(fibreboard, plywood, and pulp production) in accordance with the findings of the 
Task 1 report of this project and the lack of accurate trade data concerning the use 
of wood chips. The finding of the Task 1 is that the majority of chips for the EU 
residential market is sourced locally, and imported chips are exclusively used in 
district heating or CHP plants. Chips have mainly been imported for pulp and board 
production. This follows the global trends, as less than 10% of the global wood chip 
trade is estimated to be energy-related.   

  Pellets are within the model allowed to be produced from industrial by-products, 
SRC and eucalyptus plantations. These conversion pathways are accounted for to 
allow for future developments and changes in pathways. Note that wood pellets is 
within the model framework assumed to be only applied for large scale industrial 
use such as co-firing with coal and district heating.  

  No trade of harvest residues is modelled in the project due to a lack of reliable data 

to harmonize trade flows. 

  Data concerning the state of forest-based industries as collected within Task 1 of 
the project will also here be fully integrated within the modelling framework. This 
allows for more accurate representation of the current state of the industries as well 
as the biomass sources being used for the production of the various woody 
commodities.  

January 2016  32 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

  Demand for bioenergy in the EU28 is no longer disaggregated into two sources, 

energy produced based on biomass from forestry and energy produced based on 
biomass from short rotation forestry (SRF). A single bioenergy demand is instead 
being considered that contains biomass from both sources. With this assumption, 
we allow for complete competition for land and the use of biomass sources. That is, 
we do not prescribe a certain development for the agricultural nor the forest sector, 
but instead consider the full competition between these main sources of biomass 
feedstock as well as between the individual feedstock for each sector (e.g. for 
forest: stemwood, harvesting residues, industrial residues etc.). The change in 
assumptions in comparison to the modelling for the 2014 IA report provides 
information concerning feedstock competitiveness and allow full analysis of the 
balance depending on feedstock supply assumptions and demand implications (see 
below section “Analysis of central modelling assumptions”). 

  Bioenergy demand (heat, electricity, and biofuels) in the rest of the World evolves 
throughout the projection period in accordance with the baseline scenario of the 
2015 GECO POLES report7. Demands for all non-EU countries, regions, and years 
are implemented in the model as minimum constraints, meaning that a country can 
produce more but not less biomass for energy use than prescribed (e.g. not price 
elastic).  

5.3 Key outcomes of the baseline scenario. 

EU land use development 

Figure  3  shows  the  land  use  development  for  EU28.  From  this  figure  it  can  be  seen 
that  the  largest  changes  in  the  land  use  happen  within  the  intensification  in 
forest  land  development  and  the  development  of  SRC.  The  share  of  forest  in 
total  is  projected  to  increase  by  about  14  million  ha,  resulting  from  increasing 
afforestation  and  decreasing  deforestation  over  time.  Also,  there  is  a  notable 
increase of the share of  used forest compared to  unused forest, driven by the 
increasing  demand  of  wood  for  material  and  energy  purposes.  Still,  most  of  this 
increase  results  from  increased  afforestation:  the  area  of  unused  forests  decreases 
only  marginally.  Some  land  classified  as  other  natural  vegetation  is  changed  into 
cropland,  and  especially  into  SRC,  which is  projected  to  appear  and  increase  steadily 
throughout  the  projection  period,  reaching  an  area  of  3.4  million  ha  by  2050.  The 
development of the SRC is to a large extent met through conversion of other natural 
vegetation and cropland, and a minor  share  of conversion of grazing land. Otherwise 
there  are  only  slight  changes  in  the  land  used  for  agricultural  production;  while 
grazing  land  area  stays  overall  stable,  the  area  of  cropland  increases  by  almost  8 
million  ha.  This  development  is  partly  driven  by  the  increasing  use  of  lignocellulosic 
perennial  crops  for  bioenergy  purposes  (e.g.  switchgrass  and  miscanthus),  whose 
production is projected to grow from  20 000 ha in 2010 to more than 3 million ha in 
2050.  Overall,  the  increasing  share  of  land  for  SRC  and  perennials  for  bioenergy 
purposes is considerable, indicating a future decrease in the availability of cropland for 
the production of other commodities. 

The results are further examined in Chapter7, when comparing the results with other 
scenarios. 

January 2016  33 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  3.  Land  use  development  in  the  LULUCF  sector  in  the  EU28  in  the  Baseline 
scenario. 

Baseline 

)
a
h
m
o

i
l
l
i

m

(
a
e
r
A

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2010

Other natural land

Used forest

Unused forest

Grazing land

SRC

Cropland

2020

2030

2040

2050

Use  of  biomass  in  relevant  sectors  and  production  of  semi-finished  forest 
products 
In the Baseline scenario, the total wood consumption in the EU was 826 million m3 in 
2010 (Table 3). About one third of this volume is energy use of wood, while two thirds 
is used for material production. The share of energy use is projected to increase in the 
near future, and already in 2030, the energy use of wood is estimated to count 
41% of the total use of wood. Beyond 2030, the wood consumption is projected to 
increase further, while the shares of energy and material use will remain close to the 
level  of  2030.  In  the  projections,  the  increase  in  the  energy  use  of  wood  is  driven 
especially  by  increasing  material  production,  which  provides  industrial  residues 
(industry  side  streams)  for  energy  use,  and  by  a  fast  increase  of  short  rotation 
coppices  (SRC)  for  energy  production.  On  the  contrary,  primary  use  of  wood  for 
energy  is  expected  to  increase  until  2030,  but  then  turn  into  a  decline.  This 
development  causes  the  growth  of  the  share  of  the  energy  use  of  wood  to  stabilize 
between  2030  and  2050,  compared  to  the  considerable  increase  between  2010  and 
2030.   

The baseline results for 2010 are on the same overall level as the corresponding 
levels  reported  by  the  EUWood  study  (Mantau  et  al.  2010)  and  Indufor 
(2011).  EUWood  has  a  higher  estimate  for  primary  energy  use  of  wood  than  our 
baseline,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  estimate  for  material  use  of  wood  is  lower.  The 
biggest  individual  reason  for  the  discrepancy  in  the  energy  use  of  wood  is  the  very 
uncertain statistics of household fuelwood available for the EU. This uncertainty is also 
the reason between the different estimates for  energy use  of wood between  EUWood 
and  the  report  by  Indufor.  Here,  Indufor  estimates  are  similar  to  our  baseline  for 
energy  use,  with  roughly  half  of  the  energy  use  of  wood  resulting  from  industry  side 
streams, and half from direct (primary) use of wood for energy production. 

On the material production side, our baseline falls in between the EUWood and Indufor 
estimates.  Here,  the  previous  studies  differ  from  each  other  on  the  pulp  and  paper 
sector.  Here,  a  full  comparison  is  difficult  as  Indufor  reports  “pulp  and  paper”,  and 
EUWood and our baseline accounts for the wood used only for pulp production. Paper 
recycling is a possible cause for the large difference in the estimates: as paper can be 

January 2016  34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

effectively recycled and used for production of new paper even multiple times, it is not 
straightforward  to  compile  statistics  for  the  volume  of  wood  used  in  the  paper 
industries.  In  fact,  the  same  problem  is  present  also  in  the  virgin  use  of  wood,  as 
forest industries are very efficient in making use of all of the wood biomass, including 
production  residues.  That  is,  accounting  for  the  use  of  wood  in  terms  of  input  for 
different industries as in Table 3, inevitably includes a considerable amount of double-
counting.  As  a  result,  the  total  consumption  of  wood  in  the  wood-based  industries  is 
not  the  same  as  the  volume  of  forest  harvests  needed  to  satisfy  the  raw  material 
demand of the industries. This is clearly seen in the charts depicting the flow of wood 
in the industry (e.g. Figure 4). 

Table  3.  Comparison  of  the  project  results  and  reference  literature  on  wood 
consumption in the EU28, divided into material and energy uses. 
Study 

ReceBio Baseline 

EUWood 

Indufor 

Reference year 

2010 

2011 

2010 

2030 

2050 

Total Wood Consumption 

  Total Material Use* 

  Wood Products Industry** 

  Pulp and Paper 

  Pulp 

  Total Energy Use, excl. SRC 
  Wood products industry side 
streams*** 
  Wood used primarily for 
energy**** 
Energy Biomass from SRC 

825 

457 

314 

143 

368 

942 

649 

308 

341 

293 

150 

841 

535 

367 

162 

306 

155 

143 

151 

0 

Energy use, % 

45% 

31% 

36% 

Million m³ 

1106 

686 

498 

182 

359 

216 

143 

60 

38% 

1004 

613 

436 

172 

346 

188 

158 

44 

39% 

64% 

69% 

62% 
55% 
Material use, % 
Note  that  this  table  describes  the  input  volumes  for  wood-using  industries.  This  means  that  some  of  the 
wood biomass is counted both  within “Total Material Use” and “Total Energy Use”, because by-products of 
the material industries can be used in the production of other materials (pulp and/or particleboards), or for 
energy.  This  is  a  common  way  of  accounting  for  wood  use  found  in  the  literature,  but  partial  double-
counting makes it impossible to compare these numbers with actual harvest volumes. The flowcharts used 
in  this  report  (e.g.  Figure  4)  bypass  this  problem  by  showing  the  actual  wood  biomass  flows  through  the 
industries. 
*In ReceBio: Sawmill and board industries, pulp production, and recovered wood used for material 
**In ReceBio: Sawmill and board industries 
***In ReceBio: Sawdust, wood chips, bark and black liquor used for energy, and recovered wood 
****In ReceBio: firewood, forest residues, industrial-quality roundwood used directly for energy, imported 
pellets. 

61% 

Figure  4  illustrates  the  flow  of  wood  biomass  between  the  different  wood  using 
industries.  The  figures  provide  an  overview  of  the  flow  of  wood  in  the  Baseline 
scenario for the years 2010, 2030, and 2050. Note that the figure represents the flow 
of  wood  used  as  input  in  material  and  energy  production,  not  the  ouput  volume  of 
(semi-) finished woody products. 

There  is  a  clear  growth  in  the  forest  based  industries  producing  materials,  driven  by 
increasing  population  and  GDP  development.  This  growth  is  seen  in  all  material 
production  (sawnwood,  wood-based  panels  and  pulp  production).  The  increased 
material production also leads into an increased production of industrial residues and 
by-products  used  for  energy  purposes.  This  applies  for  the  use  of  the  solid  by-

January 2016  35 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

products  sawchips,  sawdust  and  bark,  as  well  as  for  the  black  liquor  produced 
alongside the chemical pulp process.  

The  flow  charts  highlight  also  that  a  significant  amount  of  wood  will  be  required  for 
meeting  the  bioenergy  demand.  A  large  part  of  this  is  sourced  from  SRC,  which 
increases  from  a  negligible  amount in  2010  to  60  million  m3 in  2050.  By-products  of 
the material-producing industries are also a notable source of biomass for energy. In 
addition, the trade of wood pellets is expected to increase from 10 Mm3 to 23 Mm3 by 
2050.  USA  and  Canada  are  still  foreseen  as  major  trading  partners  for  pellets,  but 
Latin  America,  the  former  USSR,  and  South-East  Asia  are  expected  to  develop  into 
major players on this front. Contrary to other sources of wood biomass for energy, the 
amount  of  firewood  is  estimated  to  decrease,  driven  by  an  expected  shift  from 
domestic to district heating. This development is modelled in line with estimates as of 
PRIMES. 

January 2016  36 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 4. Flow of wood in the Baseline scenario, in Mm3 SWE. 

January 2016  37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Forest harvests in the EU 

Figure 5 shows the forest harvests  for different purposes and their development over 
time.    In  particular,  the  figure  highlights  the  amount  of  harvested  wood  that  will  be 
primarily used for material and energy purposes; it should be noted that even some of 
the  wood  harvested  for  material  production  will  eventually  be  used  for  energy  in  the 
form of industrial residues and by-products. 

The increase in the total amount of forest harvests is clearly seen, and particularly the 
harvests for material production show a steadily increasing trend. Harvests for energy 
stay  on  a  more  stable  level,  and  even  turn  into  a  decrease  after  2030.  The  key 
reasons  for  this  decrease  are  the  decreasing  use  of  firewood  in  combination  with 
increasing  import  of  wood  pellets  and  SRC  for  energy  purposes,  which  replace  the 
energy  use  of  harvested  wood  from  the  forests.  Overall,  this  draws  also  the  total 
harvest  level  downwards,  causing  a  slightly  slower  increase  of  the  total  harvest  level 
after 2030 than in the prior two decades.  

Figure 5. Forest harvest removal* over time within the EU28.  

Baseline Scenario 

)
3
m
M

(

s
t
s
e
v
r
a
H

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Harvests for material use

Harvests for energy use

Total harvests

*The category “Harvests for direct energy use” combines harvests of forest residues, firewood, sawlogs and 
pulplogs that are used for energy as such, or after chipping and/or pelletization. “Harvests for material use” 
shows  the  harvested  amount  of  sawlogs  and  pulplogs  that  is  used  for  material  production  in  the  forest 
industries  and  production  of  other  wood  products  (part  of  this  volume  will  eventually  become  industrial 
residue and be used as energy as well). Total harvests is the aggregate of harvests for energy and material 
use. 

Figure  6  shows  the  development  of  harvest  in  terms  of  the  two  main  types  of 
industrial  roundwood,  wood  of  sawlog  and  pulplog  quality.  The  development  echoes 
the development already seen in the previous figure, with a more rapid increase seen 
until  2030,  and  a  stabilizing  trend  thereafter.  Harvest  of  sawlogs  is  projected  to 
increase more steadily, while there is a only a minor increase in the pulplog harvests 
until  2030,  and  almost  a  negative  trend  thereafter.  This  stabilizing  trend  reflects  the 
results seen in the previous figure: the harvest of lower-diameter wood stabilizes after 
2030, these logs being less suitable for material production and hence used more for 
energy  purposes.  The  relative  reduction  of  the  harvest  of  pulplogs  and  increase  of 
sawlog  harvests  also  reflects  the  larger  future  share  of  industrial  by-products  from 
domestic production that was seen in the flowcharts of Figure 4. 

January 2016  38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 6. Harvest yield divided by sawlog and pulplog assortments in the EU28 in the 
Baseline  Scenario.  Note  that  sawlogs  are  the  logs  of  higher  quality  that  are  acquired 
by sawmills, while pulplogs are generally logs of lower quality traditionally acquired by 
pulp mills. 

Harvests by assortments 

Sawlogs 

Pulplogs 

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

)
3
m
0
0
0
1
(
e
m
u
o
v

l

t
s
e
v
r
a
H

0
2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Comparison with results from other studies 

The  increasing  trend  of  forest  biomass  harvests  is  comparable  to  the  harvest 
projections presented in the European Forest Sector Outlook Study II (EFSOS II 2011) 
and  in  EUWood  (Mantau  et  al.  2010).  In  the  Reference  scenario  of  EFSOS  II, 
stemwood removal was estimated to increase between 2010 and 2030 by 15% (from 
595 Mm3 to 685 Mm3). This is a larger increase than in ReceBio, where the stemwood 
harvests  (domestic  harvests  excluding  harvest  residues)  increase  by  10%  within  the 
same  time  period.  In  addition,  EFSOS  II  projects  an  increase  in  harvest  residue 
extraction  from  4.5  Tg  to  41.1  Tg  of  dry  matter  (8-fold  increase),  while  Recebio 
follows  more  conservative  estimates  from  PRIMES,  resulting  in  16%  more  forest 
residue  extraction  in  2030  than  in  2010.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  geographical 
scope in EFSOS II is the whole Europe including Turkey,  whereas ReceBio focuses on 
the EU28. Nevertheless, the relative change over time between the studies can still be 
compared.  

In  opposite  to  EFSOS  II,  EUWood  presents  very  different  prospects  for  the 
development of  EU harvests.  In EUWood,  stemwood harvests  in 2010 are considered 
already very close to the theoretical potential (544 Mm3 under bark) in the EU27. More 
biomass  potential  is  assumed  mainly  from  increased  harvest  residue  and  stump 
extraction. EUWood estimates the harvest residue extraction in 2010 at 103 Mm3 and 
stump  extraction  at  10  Mm3,  and  assumes  a  realistic  potential  in  2030  to  lie  at  152 
Mm3  for  residues  and  102  Mm3  for  stumps:  a  50%  increase  in  harvest  residue 
collection  over  time  compared  to  16%  in  ReceBio,  and  ten-fold  increase  in  stump 
harvests over time, compared to no increase in ReceBio.  

Comparing  the  ReceBio  results  to  these  two  studies,  ReceBio  estimates  for  forest 
harvest  development  are  somewhere  in  between.  Contrary  to  EUWood,  ReceBio 
foresees  potential  for  increasing  stemwood  harvests,  while  however  with  a  more 

January 2016  39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

modest  rate  than  predicted  in  the  EFSOS  II.  Both  EFSOS  II  and  especially  EUWood 
stress the importance of harvest residue and stump extraction as a biomass source in 
2030:  in  ReceBio,  forest  residue  harvesting  is  much  more  modest.  Instead,  ReceBio 
projects  a  considerable  development  of  SRC,  which  is  outside  the  scope  of  either 
EFSOS II or EUWood.  

Short rotation coppices in the EU 

In  Recebio  baseline  modelling,  SRC  harvests  are  projected  to  become  a  considerably 
larger source of biomass for energy, starting from a production level of 0.3 million m3 
in 2010 and reaching 60 million m3 by 2050 (Figure 7). In the baseline projection, SRC 
is  seen  to  increase  especially  rapidly  until  2030.  After  2030,  the  production  rate 
continues to increase although with a slightly slower rate due to the levelling off in the 
bioenergy  demand  and  increasing  imports.  The  stepwise  development  seen  in  the 
graph is a result of the model being run with 10-year time steps, rather than a direct 
result  of  drivers  on  the  policy  side.  As  seen  in  the  graph,  the  development  of  the 
production area, and the volume of SRC for energy follow the same path. This is due 
to  the  model  not  differentiating  the  production  capacities  of  different  types  of  soils, 
but instead uses an average yields of SRC based on Havlík et al. 201116. 

Figure 7. Production of SRC in the EU28. 

SRC Production 

)
3
m
M

(
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

)
a
h
0
0
0
1
(
a
e
r
A

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Volume produced

Production area

Price development in the EU 

The  prices  of  both  harvested  wood  and  wood  products  increase  over  time  in  the 
Baseline scenario (Figure  8). The relative increase is much higher for  the sawlog and 
pulplog  prices  than  for  sawnwood,  panels  and  pulp.  Especially  the  relatively  large 
increase  in  the  pulplog  prices  indicates  that  thinnings  will  become  more  profitable  in 
the future, and overall the price development seems to profit the forest owners more 
than the forest industry.  

January 2016  40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 8. Price development of harvested wood and semi-finished forestry products. 

0
1
0
2
n

i

e
c
i
r
p
o
t
e
v
i
t
a
e
r
e
c
i
r
P

l

1.80

1.70

1.60

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10

1.00

0
1
0
2
n

i

e
c
i
r
p
o
t
e
v
i
t
a
e
r
e
c
i
r
P

l

1.20

1.15

1.10

1.05

1.00

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Sawlogs

Pulplogs

Chemical pulp
Plywood
Sawnwood

Mechanical pulp
Fiberboard

Trade of woody biomass and forestry products  

In  the  following,  the  net  trade  of  primary  and  semi-finished  wood  products  is 
presented  for  the  Baseline  scenario,  comparing  the  modelling  results  to  the  previous 
studies and statistics. 

Figure  9  shows  the  total  net  trade  of  wood  products  between  the  EU  and  rest  of  the 
world  in  the  baseline  scenario.  The  EU  is  a  net  importer  of  roundwood,  wood  chips, 
wood  pulp  and  wood  pellets,  and  a  net  exporter  of  sawnwood.  This  situation  is 
projected  to  continue  and  be  emphasized  in  the  future,  as  the  EU  is  projected  to 
increase  its  traded  volumes  in  all  of  these  categories.  The  largest  increases  are 
seen  in  roundwood  and  wood  pellet  imports.  Also  the  exported  volume  of 
sawnwood  is  expected  to  clearly increase,  mainly driven  by  the  anticipated  economic 
growth in eastern Asia (especially China), South Asia, (India), as well as in the Middle-
East and Africa (Figure 10). 

Wood  pellet  imports  from  Latin  America,  former  USSR,  and  South-East  Asia  increase 
heavily towards 2050, adding to the already existing import flow of pellets from North 
America  and  former  USSR.  In  total,  the  amount  of  imported  pellets  is  projected  to 
increase  from  4  million  tonnes  in  2010  to  more  than  9  million  tonnes  in  2050.  This 
development  is  directly  driven  by  the  EU  bioenergy  policies,  as  all  of  the  EU  pellet 
imports will by default be used for energy production. Roundwood, on the other hand, 
is imported first and foremost for material production. It forms the largest volumes in 
the wood trade between EU and rest of the world. According to the statistics (see Task 
1 report), roundwood was in 2010 imported especially from the neighboring countries, 
mainly  Russia,  Ukraine,  Norway  and  Switzerland.  As  the  roundwood  is  a  bulky 
material, shipping costs are relatively high and  favor the transports on land and over 
relatively short distances. This is also seen in the Baseline scenario results, where the 
area  of  the  former  USSR  accounts  for  most  of  the  EU  roundwood  imports.  These 
roundwood imports are projected to increase steadily from 2010 to 2050. It should be 
noted that the initial trade volumes are calibrated to the statistics from 2000. In 2009, 
Russia  imposed  a  tariff  for  roundwood  exports,  causing  the  trade  of  roundwood 
between Russia and the EU to drop drastically (see Task 1 report). Although the trade 
has  since  recovered  to  some  extent,  this  still  causes  an  overestimate  of  the  2010 

January 2016  41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

roundwood  imports  in  the  Baseline,  as  compared  to  the  actual  statistics  from  that 
year. 

Figure 9. Net trade of wood products in traded volume and mass. Note that the 
negative values denote exports from the EU28 and positive values denote imports to 
the EU28. 

Baseline 

Baseline 

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

-10000

-20000

-30000

3

m
0
0
0
1

,
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
d
o
o
w

f
o
e
d
a
r
T

t
0
0
0
1

,
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
d
o
o
w

f
o
e
d
a
r
T

20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0

2010

2030

2050

2010

2030

2050

Roundwood Woodchips

Boards

Sawnwood

Pulp Wood pellets

Figure 10. Destination of EU28 sawnwood exports in 2010 and 2050.  

South 
Asia 
0% 

Other 
West 
and 
Central 
Europe 
7% 

USA 
6% 

Eastern 
Asia 
29% 

Middle-
East and 
North 
Africa 
58% 
2010, net sawnwood exports  
2.9 Mm3 

USA 
2% 

Sub-
Saharan 
Africa 
17% 

South Asia 
15% 

Eastern 
Asia 
33% 

Middle-
East and 
North 
Africa 
30% 

Latin 
America 
1% 

2050, net sawnwood exports 23 Mm3 

Other 
West and 
Central 
Europe 
2% 

January 2016  42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

6. Policy Scenarios  
The baseline that was selected for this study forms a point of comparison in terms of 
the implication of various policies. Within the project, a number of policy scenarios are 
analysed within the context of  the  EU proposed climate-energy targets for 2030 (see 
Table 2). 

In  each  scenario,  the  level  of  bioenergy  demand  is  determined  when  defining  the 
scenario,  in  accordance  with  PRIMES  and  POLES  estimates.  In  the  modelling,  change 
in  LULUCF  emissions  due  to  increased  or  reduced  biomass  demand  is  not  accounted 
for in the efforts needed for reaching an overall EU GHG emission reduction target part 
of each scenario. Increasing or decreasing forest carbon stocks in relation to the forest 
management  levels  are  not  reflected  back  to  the  bioenergy  demand,  due  to  the  fact 
that  LULUCF  emissions  are  currently  not  accounted  for  in  the  political  targets.  These 
emissions are however shown as output of the model. 

6.1. 

Storyline of the EU Emission Reduction Scenario 
This  scenario  depicts  a  development  where  more  stringent  GHG  emission  abatement 
targets  for  EU  come  into  play,  enhancing  the  development  of  the  bioenergy  sector. 
Thus, the scenario assumes higher targets for EU in terms of GHG emission reduction 
in  comparison  to  the  baseline  scenario.  This  in  turn  is  expected  to  increase  the 
demand  for  biomass  for  energy  purposes,  place  higher  pressure  on  biomass 
production,  straining  the  amount  of  biomass  available  for  material  production.  In 
short, the scenario will show implications of higher bioenergy production levels for the 
EU in comparison to the baseline scenario. 

For  EU,  the  scenario  is  based  on  the  same  overall  targets  and  policy assumptions  as 
for  the  GHG40/EE  scenario  in  the  2014  IA  report.  The  same  differences  as  pointed 
between  the  EU  Reference  Scenario  of  the  2014  IA  and  the  baseline  scenario  of  this 
project (see Chapter 4.3) will also be applicable here in terms of differences between 
the  GHG40/EE  scenario  and  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  Scenario.  Most  importantly, 
the same bioenergy demand level as for the GHG40/EE scenario will be applied for this 
scenario.  However,  as  in  the  baseline  scenario,  bioenergy  demand  will  be  considered 
as  one  category.  The  main  points  of  the  overall  targets  and  policy  assumptions  that 
the  scenario is  based  upon  are  described  below.  These  are  the  same  assumptions  as 
those in the GHG40/EE scenario. 

This  scenario  represents  a  situation  where  the  EU  would  apply  a  GHG  emission 
reduction target of 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 with respect to the 1990 emission 
level. The GHG emission reductions would also be in line with the milestones as set up 
by  the  Commission  in  the  Low  Carbon  Economy  Roadmap  and  the  2050  Energy 
Roadmap.  Furthermore,  the  scenario  would  be  compatible  with  EU’s  objective  to 
reduce  GHG  emissions  by  80-95%  as  part  of  an  effort  in  developed  countries  to 
reduce  global  warming  below  2°C.  Emissions  from  the  LULUCF  sector  are  not 
accounted for in these targets. 

The  GHG  emission  reduction  of  the  scenario  is  assumed  to  be  met  through 
equalisation  of  marginal  abatement  cost  of  GHG  emissions  across  the  economy 
through  the  introduction  of  a  carbon  price  that  increases  throughout  the  projection 
period.  No  additional  energy  efficiency  (EE)  policies  are  assumed  on  top  of  the 
baseline  scenario,  meaning  that  no  set  targets  for  energy  efficiency  are  applied. 
However,  economic  incentives  are  still  assumed  to  lead  to  an  increase  in  energy 
savings  as  of  2030  in  comparison  to  that  of  the  EU  Reference  Scenario.  Energy 
savings  in  2030  in  the  2014  IA  (where  the  evaluations  are  made  against  the  2007 
Baseline  projections)  are  estimated  to  be  -29.3%  as  for  the  GHG40/EE  scenarios  in 

January 2016  43 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

comparison  to  that  of  -21%  as  of  the  EU  Reference  Scenario.  No  pre-set  renewable 
energy  share  (RES)  target  or  additional  support  policies  of  RES  in  addition  to  the 
baseline  scenario  are  assumed.  Still,  underlying  economic  conditions  would  promote 
growth of renewable energy production, enabling RES to account for a 26.5% share of 
gross final energy consumption in 2030, following the estimates in the 2014 IA report. 
Although  the  GHG  emission  target  will  impact  a  range  of  sectors,  only  sectors  and 
impacts  that  are  relevant  for  and  covered  by  the  modelling  framework  will  be  taken 
into account.  

For  the  RoW,  the  scenario  assumes  the  same  overall  targets  and  policy  assumptions 
as for the baseline scenario.  In other words, enhanced GHG mitigation policies  in the 
EU  are  not  reflected  in  the  RoW.  As  such,  the  same  bioenergy  demand  for  RoW  is 
assumed as for the baseline scenario. 

Main underlying assumptions 

  The same assumptions as for the baseline scenario apply for all aspects as stated 
earlier for the baseline scenario (GDP projections, global population growth, etc.), 
except for: 

  The bioenergy demand in EU28 evolves throughout the projection period in 

accordance with levels evaluated as for the GHG40/EE scenario. This implies that 
demand for biomass for energy is higher than the level assumed for the baseline 
scenario by 2050. Further, energy savings are estimated to develop in line with the 
GHG40/EE scenario, and are -29.3% in 2030 compared to the 2007 Baseline 
projections, leading to lower demand for biomass for energy as of 2030 than that of 
the baseline scenario.  

  Demand for first and second generation biofuel within EU28 develop all the way until 

2050 according to the levels assumed for the GHG40/EE scenario. 

  Demand for household fuelwood (firewood) within EU28 evolves throughout the 

projection period in accordance with Small Scale Solid production levels as 
evaluated by PRIMES for the GHG40/EE scenario. 

  The bioenergy demand in RoW evolves throughout the projection period in 

accordance with the levels assumed as for the baseline scenario.  

Key outcomes of the EU Emission Reduction Scenario 

EU land use development 

In  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  Scenario,  increased  demand  for  bioenergy  accentuates 
the land use development seen in the Baseline scenario. The largest land use changes 
are seen in the development of SRC and the share of used forests (Figure 11), which 
both  increase  considerably  in  the  scenario,  especially  after  2030.  The  total 
afforestation follows the trend seen in the Baseline Scenario, but more forest is taken 
into use in the EU Emission Reduction Scenario. The area of SRC increases heavily 
in  this  scenario.  This  increase  is  particularly  noticed  after  2030.  By  2050,  the 
area of SRC is projected to almost 9 million hectares, while it was 3.4 million ha in the 
Baseline  scenario.  Most  of  this  increase  in  SRC  area  is  due  to  other  natural  land 
being  converted  to  SRC  plantations;  however,  the  area  of  grazing  land  and 
cropland  is  slightly  smaller  in  2050  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario,  affecting 
livestock  and  cereal  production.  More  detailed  analysis  of  these  results  are  given  in 
Chapter  7  and  the  implications  on  land  use  emissions  as  well  as  food  and  feed 
production are discussed in the Task 4 report. 

January 2016  44 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  11.  Land  use  development  in  the  LULUCF  sector  in  the  EU28  in  the  EU 
Emission Reduction scenario. 

EU Emission Reduction 

)
a
h
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(
a
e
r
A

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2010

Other natural land

Used forest

Unused forest

Grazing land

SRC

Cropland

2020

2030

2040

2050

Forest harvests in the EU  

The  forest  harvests  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  Scenario  are  expected  to  increase 
significantly  over  time,  emphazising  the  mobilisation  of  wood.  More  specifically,  the 
use of wood for material purposes is expected to be a major driver for the increasing 
forest harvests in the EU until 2030 (Figure 12). This development partly reflects the 
high  interrelationship  between  material  and  energy  uses  of  wood,  as  increasing 
material  use  of  wood  also  provides  more  biomass  for  energy  through  industrial  by-
products,  and  the  increase  in  material  production  (together  with  increasing  SRC  and 
pellet  imports)  is  enough  to  satisfy  the  bioenergy  demand  until  2030.  However,  the 
results also show that high bioenergy levels beyond 2030 have a clear impact  on the 
overall  forest  harvest  level.  After  2030,  the  increasing  harvests  of  wood  for 
direct energy production is expected to become the main driving force for the 
increasing forest harvests in the EU.  

The  higher  demand  for  bioenergy  after  2030  (compared  to  the  baseline)  is  reflected 
clearly  also  in  the  development  of  the  relative  shares  of  harvest  assortments  (Figure 
13),  where  the  harvest  of  pulplogs  increases  strongly  after  2030.  Until  2030,  the 
harvests  for  direct  energy  use  decrease  slightly,  as  seen  in  Figure  12,  driven  by  the 
increasing  use  of  small-scale  conversion  units  (e.g.  CHP)  that  substitute  the  use  of 
fireswood for heating purposes. After 2030, the strong demand for bioenergy turns the 
harvest trend into a clear increase, affecting especially the wood for  energy use and, 
consequently, the harvests of pulplog-quality wood.  

January 2016  45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 12. Forest harvest removal* over time within the EU28 in the EU Emission 
Reduction Scenario. 

EU Emission Reduction 

)
3
m
M

(

s
t
s
e
v
r
a
H

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Harvests for material use

Harvests for energy use

Total harvests

*The category “Harvests for direct energy use” combines harvests of forest residues, firewood, sawlogs and 
pulplogs that are used for energy as such, or after chipping and/or pelletization. “Harvests for material use” 
shows  the  harvested  amount  of  wood  that  is  used  for  material  production  in  the  forest  industries  and 
production  of  other  wood  products  (part  of  this  volume  will  eventually  become  industrial  residue  and  be 
used as energy as well). Total harvests is the aggregate of harvests for energy and material use. 

Figure 13. Development of the harvest of sawlogs and pulplogs for EU28 in the EU 
Emission Reduction Scenario. 

Harvests by assortments 

Sawlogs 

Pulplogs 

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

)
3
m
0
0
0
1
(
e
m
u
o
v

l

t
s
e
v
r
a
H

0
2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

January 2016  46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Short rotation coppices in the EU 

The large increase in the demand of bioenergy is projected to increase the production 
of  SRC  in  this  scenario,  showing  a  strong  growth  in  these  crops  until  2030  as  in  the 
baseline, but continuing to grow  even faster thereafter (Figure 14). While the growth 
of SRC production declined in the Baseline scenario after 2030, it increases even more 
in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario,  resulting  in  more  than  twice  the  production 
volumes and area used for production compared to the Baseline scenario.  

Figure 14. Production of SRC in the EU 28 in the EU Emission Reduction scenario.  

SRC Production, EU Emission Reduction 

)
3
m
M

(
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

)
a
h
0
0
0
1
(
a
e
r
A

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Volume produced

Production area

Use  of  biomass  in  relevant  sectors  and  production  of  semi-finished  forest 
products 

In  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  Scenario,  the  overall  development  of  wood  use  within 
the EU28 follows the trends shown in the baseline scenario until 2030 (Figure 15). The 
use  of  woody  biomass  for  material  production  follows  the  increasing  pattern  seen  in 
the Baseline Scenario even beyond 2030, differing only in the slightly lower production 
of particleboard and chemical pulp in 2050 than in the baseline. On the contrary, the 
use  of  woody  biomass  for  energy  increases  very  heavily,  both  between  2010  and 
2030,  and  especially  between  2030  and  2050.  Until  2030,  the  increase  in  the  use  of 
woody  biomass  for  energy  in  the  Emission  Reduction  Scenario  is  similar  to  the 
baseline  scenario,  with  notable  increases  in  the  use  of  industrial  by-products  (as  a 
direct  consequence  of  increasing  material  production),  as  well  as  a  clear  increase  in 
the  production  of  SRC.    By  2050,  however,  the  industrial  by-products  continue  the 
same  increasing  pattern,  while  the  amount  of  roundwood  used  directly  for 
energy  and  production  of  SRC  increase  much  more  heavily  than  in  the 
baseline.  The  main  driver  for  this  development  is  the  increase  in  the  bioenergy 

January 2016  47 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

demand  assumed  in  this  scenario,  which  draws  78  million  m3  of  pulplog-quality 
roundwood into direct energy use in 2050, contrary to the Baseline scenario where no 
roundwood  that  could  be  used  for  material  production  were  needed  to  satisfy  the 
energy demand.  

January 2016  48 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 15. EU28 Flow of wood in the EU Emission Reduction scenario.* 

January 2016  49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

6.2. 

Storyline of the Constant EU Bioenergy Demand Scenario 

This  scenario  depicts  a  development  where  no  further  action  for  promoting  the 
development  of  the  bioenergy  sector  comes  into  play  after  2020  and  the  focus  in 
achieving  the  GHG  emission  reduction  target  is  shifted  from  the  bioenergy  sector  to 
the other renewable energy sources. This in turn is assumed to lead to a reduced pace 
of development in the bioenergy sector, keeping it stable at 2020 levels. This is based 
on  the  assumption  that  the  private  sector  may  prove  unwilling  to  roll  back  the 
established  conversion  capacities,  but  also  unwilling  to  invest  further  into  the 
development  of  the  sector.  The  scenario  also  assumes  that  no  further  policies, 
regulatory  frameworks,  legislations  or  targets  are  introduced  related  to  the  LULUCF 
sector. 

For  the  RoW,  the  scenario  assumes  the  same  overall  targets  and  policy  assumptions 
as for the baseline scenario. The same bioenergy demand for RoW  is assumed as for 
the baseline scenario.  

These developments as assumed for the scenario are expected to reduce the pressure 
on  biomass  production  compared  to  the  Emission  reduction  scenario  and  to  increase 
the amount of biomass available for material production. In short, the scenario shows 
the  implication  of  a  low  bioenergy  production  levels  for  the  EU  in  comparison  to  the 
baseline scenario.  

Main underlying assumptions 

The same assumptions as for the baseline scenario apply for all aspects as stated 
earlier for the baseline scenario (GDP projections, global population growth, etc.), 
except for: 
  The demand for bioenergy in EU28 evolves until 2020 in accordance with 

assumptions for the GHG40/EE scenario in the 2014 IA report. This applies also for 
the energy savings, where the development follows GHG40/EE scenario until 2020, 
but no energy efficiency improvements are assumed thereafter. 

  From 2020 onward, demand for biomass for heat and electricity remains constant in 
EU28 and does not change over time. Sources and types of biomass used for energy 
purposes are allowed to change over time in relation to changes in prices and 
availabilities. Demand for all other commodities evolves over time according to GDP 
and population growth as expressed for the baseline scenario. 

  Demand for first and second generation biofuel within EU28 develop all the way until 
2050 according to the levels of the GHG40/EE scenario. This is assumed to single 
out the effect of biomass utilization of biomass for heat and electricity.  

  Demand for household fuelwood (firewood) within EU28 evolves throughout the 
projection period in accordance with the assumptions for the baseline scenario. 

  The bioenergy demand in RoW evolves throughout the projection period in 

accordance with the levels assumed as for the baseline scenario. 

Key outcomes of the Constant EU Bioenergy Demand Scenario 

EU land use development 

In  the  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  Scenario,  the  trends  seen  in  the  baseline 
are  repeated,  but  not  quite  as  strongly.  Especially,  the  increase  of  the  area 
dedicated  to  SRC  is  much  smaller  in  this  scenario  (Figure  16),  increasing  until  2030 

January 2016  50 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

but turning into a decline thereafter. Otherwise the development is quite similar to the 
baseline  scenario,  with  a  clear  increase  in  afforestation  over  time  and  the  area  of 
forest  taken  under  management  towards  2050.  However,  the  area  of  forest  taken 
under  management  is  smaller  than  in  the  baseline  scenario,  and  a  small  increase  is 
noted in the area of cropland and grazing land compared to the baseline scenario. The 
differences between the scenarios are further examined in Chapter 7. 

Figure  16.  Land  use  development  in  the  LULUCF  sector  in  the  EU28  in  the  Constant 
EU Bioenergy Demand scenario. 

Constant EU Bioenergy Demand 

)
a
h
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(
a
e
r
A

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2010

Other natural land

Used forest

Unused forest

Grazing land

SRC

Cropland

2020

2030

2040

2050

Forest harvests in the EU 

The forest harvest removals (Figure 17) increase in line with the former two scenarios 
until 2020, and grow thereafter on a slightly slower pace. The harvests for energy use 
turn  into  a  slight  decrease  after  2020,  reflecting  the  policy  of  constant  bioenergy 
demand in the EU beyond 2020 that lowers the pressure for forest harvests for energy 
purposes.  

January 2016  51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 17. Forest harvest removal* over time within the EU28 in the Constant EU 
Bioenergy Demand scenario. 

Constant EU Bioenergy Demand 

)
3
m
M

(

s
t
s
e
v
r
a
H

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Harvests for material use

Harvests for energy use

Total harvests

*The category “Harvests for direct energy use” combines harvests of forest residues, firewood, sawlogs and 
pulplogs that are used for energy as such, or after chipping and/or pelletization. “Harvests for material use” 
shows  the  harvested  amount  of  wood  that  is  used  for  material  production  in  the  forest  industries  and 
production  of  other  wood  products  (part  of  this  volume  will  eventually  become  industrial  residue  and  be 
used as energy as well). Total harvests is the aggregate of harvests for energy and material use. 

Short rotation coppices in the EU 

The  most  prominent  difference  to  the  Baseline  (and  EU  Emission  Reduction) 
scenario is the much lower production of SRC (Figure 18), that peaks in 2020 
and then turns into a decline. The decrease in production after 2020 relates to the 
stable bioenergy demand after 2020, which to a large extent will be possible to satisfy 
through  the  use  of  forest  biomass  and  particularly  industrial  by-products.  As  seen  in 
Figure  19  below,  the  sourcing  of  industrial  by-products  continues  to  increase  even 
after 2020, thereby reducing the pressure for the production of SRC to fulfill the total 
bioenergy demand. 

January 2016  52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 18. Production of SRC in the EU28 in the Constant EU Bioenergy Demand 
scenario. Note that the scale of this figure is not the same to the corresponding figures 
for the other scenarios. 

SRC Production, Constant EU Bioenergy Demand 

)
3
m
M

(
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P

25

20

15

10

5

0

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

)
a
h
0
0
0
1
(
a
e
r
A

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Volume produced

Production area

Use  of  biomass  in  relevant  sectors  and  production  of  semi-finished  forest 
products 

In  the  Constant  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario,  the  most  prominent  differences  to  the 
Baseline  scenario  and  especially  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario,  are  the  much 
lower  level  of  SRC  production  and  roundwood  harvests  for  direct  energy  use  (Figure 
19).  The  total  harvest  level  in  2050  is  71  Mm3  lower  in  this  scenario  than  in  the 
Emission Reduction scenario. Still, it is seen that although there is less competition for 
pulp  logs  in  this  scenario,  the  material  production  from  this  feedstock  (particleboard 
production  and  especially  pulp  production)  increase  only  little  compared  to  the 
Baseline scenario.  

January 2016  53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 19. EU28 flow of wood in the Constant Bioenergy Demand scenario. 

January 2016  54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

6.3. 

Storyline of the Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand 

Scenario 

This  scenario  depicts  a  development  wherein  joint  global  efforts  are  taken  to  reduce 
GHG  emissions  beyond  2020,  thereby  enhancing  the  development  of  the  bioenergy 
sector  for  the  RoW  and  EU.  The  scenario  assumes  higher  targets  for  EU  and  RoW  in 
terms of GHG emission reduction in comparison to the baseline scenario. This in turn 
is expected to lead to globally increasing demand for biomass for energy purposes and 
globally increasing pressure to produce biomass resources. In its core, the scenario is 
selected  to  highlight  the  implication  that  higher  bioenergy  targets  in  the  RoW  may 
have for the EU and the RoW, in comparison to the baseline scenario. 

For EU28, the scenario is based on the same overall targets and policy assumptions as 
the  GHG40/EE  scenario  in  the  2014  IA  report  (and,  followingly,  the  EU  Emission 
Reduction  Scenario).  Most  importantly,  the  bioenergy  demand  level  for  EU28  is  the 
same in this scenario as in the GHG40/EE scenario. RES development over time in the 
EU  is  assumed  to  be  the  same  as  assumed  for  the  GHG40/EE  scenario  (26.5%  in 
2030). 

For  RoW,  the  bioenergy  demand  is  based  on  the  2015  Global  Mitigation  scenario7
  as 
jointly developed based on the POLES and GEM-E3 models. This scenario reflects that 
joint international actions are taken to reduce  global emissions in line with ambitions 
to  keep  global  warming  below  2°C  and  where  all  regions  put  into  play  actions  that 
leads to a lower GHG emission pathways. The scenario assumes a global participation 
in  reaching  the  climate  target  and  where  all  sectors  assist  in  mitigation  efforts.  The 
scenario  has  taken  into  account  countries  individual  constraints  and  capabilities  for 
participating  in  mitigation  efforts  and  thereby  provides  addition  time  for  low  income 
countries to enforce mitigation actions that may limit national growth potentials.  

Resulting  of  countries  mitigation  contributions  to  mitigating  emissions,  the  Global 
Mitigation  scenario  projects  that  global  emission  would  be  reduced  by  60%  below 
2010 levels by 2050. Key developments for achieving the target are mitigation options 
such  as  increasing  shares  of  renewables,  energy  savings,  and  reduced  non-CO2 
emissions  from  the  waste  sector.  The  renewable  energy  share  (including  biomass)  is 
expected  to  globally  increase  from  11%  share  of  global  primary  energy  demand  in 
2010,  to  20%  in  2030,  and  39%  in  2050.  Biomass  is  expected  to  play  an  important 
role  in  this  development  and  the  use  of  biomass  in  the  energy  sector  is  expected  to 
increase  from  roughly  50  EJ  per  year  in  2010,  to  150  EJ  per  year  in  2050.  The 
increase in the use of biomass in the energy sector as compared to that of the POLES 
baseline  scenario  is  roughly  40  EJ  per  year  in  2050,  and  the  increase  by  volume  is 
expected to be most  significant in regions such as North America,  Other  OECD, Latin 
America and India.  

Bioenergy  demand  is  increasing  within  EU28  (1.6  EJ  per  year  in  2050),  but  the 
increase is much more  substantial outside of the EU28. Regions  such  as  India, North 
America, and Latin America are here projected to increase their bioenergy demand to 
a large extend in comparison  to that of what is seen in the POLES baseline scenario. 
The  Global  Mitigation  scenario  as  such  projects  that  the  use  of  biomass  for  energy 
purposes will increase with high amount for number regions outside the EU28. 

For further details concerning the assumptions taken for the construction of the Global 
Mitigation scenario we refer to GECO20157. 

January 2016  55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Main underlying assumptions 

The same assumptions apply for all aspects as stated earlier for the baseline scenario 
(GDP projections, global population growth, etc.), except for: 
  The bioenergy demand in EU28 evolves throughout the projection period in 

accordance with levels evaluated as for the GHG40/EE scenario. This implies that 
demand for biomass for energy is higher than the level assumed for the baseline 
scenario by 2050. Further, energy savings are estimated to develop in line with the 
GHG40/EE scenario, and are -29.3% in 2030 compared to the 2007 Baseline 
projections.  

  Demand for first and second generation biofuel within EU28 develop all the way until 

2050 according to the levels as assumption for the GHG40/EE scenario.  

  Demand for household fuelwood (firewood) within EU28 evolves throughout the 

projection period in accordance with Small Scale Solid production levels as 
evaluated by PRIMES for the GHG40/EE scenario. 

  Bioenergy demand in RoW evolves until 2050 in accordance to estimations by 

POLES as for the Global Mitigation Action Scenario. All POLES bioenergy demand 
variables concerning the use of woody biomass for energy production (heat and 
power, cooking) follow the projections as of the Global Mitigation Action Scenario. 
See Annex I for a detailed overview of how the POLES bioenergy demands 
estimated is treated within the GLOBIOM model framework. 

Differences from the Global Mitigation scenario  

There are some differences in the underlying assumptions between those of the Global 
Mitigation  scenario  and  the  Increased  RoW  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario.  One  of  the 
key  aspects  is  that  the  two  scenarios  have  different  underlying  GDP  and  population 
growth projections.  

It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  use  of  a  “carbon  value”  as  of  the  Global  Mitigation 
scenario is not  reflected within the Increasing RoW Bioenergy Demand scenario.  This 
implies that land use emissions within the Increasing RoW Bioenergy demand scenario 
are not taxed nor taken up by carbon markets associated with sectorial emissions. 

Moreover,  the  bioenergy  demand  for  EU28  in  the  Increased  RoW  Bioenergy  Demand 
scenario is not the same as that of the bioenergy demand as estimated  by POLES for 
the  Global  Mitigation  scenario.  While  total  bioenergy  demand  for  EU28  is  roughly  the 
same  for  2020  and  2050,  some  differences  can  be  perceived  for  the  period  between 
2020  and  2040.  For  this  period,  the  POLES  Global  Mitigation  scenario  estimates  a 
faster  development  of  the  bioenergy  sector  than  that  assumed  in the Increased  RoW 
Bioenergy Demand scenario. However, the difference in the demand for bioenergy as 
of  2050  between  the  two  scenarios  is  lower  than  1  EJ  per  year.  Furthermore,  both 
scenarios assume that the increase in bioenergy demand is to a large extent based on 
domestic biomass resources, and not traded biomass,  hence the demand for biomass 
in RoW is consistent between the two scenarios. 

Key outcomes of the Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand scenario 
In the Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand scenario, the bioenergy demand in the EU is 
projected  to  increase  in  a  similar  way  to  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario,  but  in 
addition  to  this,  also  rest  of  the  world  is  projected  to  increase  its  use  of  bioenergy. 
This leads into a very similar pattern in the land use development as was seen in the 
EU  Emission  reduction  scenario,  with  an  even  slightly  stronger  pressure  to  increase 
the  area  of  SRC  in  the  EU  (Figure  20).  This  leads  to  smaller  area  of  cropland  and 

January 2016  56 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

grazing  land  in  2050  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario.  As  in  the  EU  Emission 
Reduction scenario, afforestation of other natural land is also strong in this scenario. 

Figure 20. Land use development in the LULUCF sector in the EU28 in the Increased 
RoW Bioenergy Demand scenario. 

Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand 

)
a
h
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(
a
e
r
A

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2010

Other natural land

Used forest

Unused forest

Grazing land

SRC

Cropland

2020

2030

2040

2050

The main impact of the increasing bioenergy demand in rest of the world modelled in 
this scenario is the  decreased  amount of EU wood pellet  imports (Figure 21 and 
Figure 22) compared to the EU Emission Reduction scenario. While EU could increase 
the  pellet  imports  to  52  million  m3  Solid  Wood  Equivalent  (SWE)  by  2050  in  the  EU 
Emission  Reduction  scenario,  the  2050  level  of  pellet  imports  is  only  39  million  m3 
SWE  in  the  Increased  RoW  Bioenergy  scenario.  The  explanation  for  this  is  that  the 
increased  demand  for  bioenergy  in  RoW  requires  more  wood  for  energy  production 
locally,  decreasing  the  possibilities  of  producing  pellets  for  trading  with  the  EU.  The 
decreased  amount  of  imported  pellets  in  the  EU  is  compensated  with  an 
increased production of SRC in EU, which is projected to correspond to 172 million 
m3  SWE  in  this  scenario,  compared  to  the  161  million  m3  SWE  produced  in  the  EU 
Emission Reduction scenario. 

January 2016  57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 21. EU28 flow of wood in the Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand scenario.* 

January 2016  58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  22.  EU28  net  trade  of  wood  products  in  the  “Increased  RoW  Bioenergy 
Demand  scenario”.  Positive  figures  denote  EU  net  imports,  negative  figures  EU  net 
exports. 

Increased RoW Bioenergy 
Demand 

Increased RoW Bioenergy 
Demand 

30000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

3

m
0
0
0
1

,
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
d
o
o
w

-10000

-20000

f
o
e
d
a
r
T

t
0
0
0
1

,
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
d
o
o
w

f
o
e
d
a
r
T

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

2010

2030

2050

Pulp Wood pellets

-30000

2010

2030

2050

Roundwood Woodchips

Boards

Sawnwood

6.4. 

Storyline of the Increased EU Biomass Import Scenario 

The aim of the scenario is to show the implication of increasing biomass import to the 
EU  from  the  RoW  in  comparison  to  the  baseline  scenario.  This  scenario  depicts  a 
development where more stringent GHG emission abatement targets for EU come into 
play, but where less biomass of EU origin is used for bioenergy within EU. A number of 
plausible  developments  could  potentially  lead  to  the  imposed  outcome  and  the 
scenario  could  represent  a  situation  where  rapid  infrastructural  investments  and 
international  transport  costs  of  biomass 
developments  take  place,  reducing 
feedstocks.  The  development  is  in  turn  expected  to  lower  the  pressure  on  European 
forests and agricultural land to produce biomass dedicated to the bioenergy sector. 

For  EU28,  the  increase  in  imports  does  not  scrutinize  from  which  non-EU  country 
these imports come. The trade partners outside of the EU will as such be defined by a 
model  outcome  and  are  of  interest  for  the  analysis.  However,  specific  regions  and 
zones  (with  high  biodiversity,  high  ecological  values,  high  carbon  stocks  e.g.)  can  be 
excluded from imports. The decrease in import price was set across the main biomass 
commodities  being  traded  (roundwood,  wood  chips,  and  wood  pellets).  Except  for  its 
increased level of biomass import into EU28, the scenario is based on the same overall 
target  as  for  the  GHG40/EE  scenario.  The  same  bioenergy  demand  levels  as  for  the 
GHG40/EE scenario will be assumed for EU28. RES development over time in the EU is 
assumed to be the same as assumed for the GHG40/EE scenario (26.5% in 2030). 

For  the  RoW,  the  scenario  assumes  the  same  overall  targets  and  policy  assumptions 
as for the baseline scenario. The same bioenergy demand for RoW will be assumed as 
for the baseline scenario.  

January 2016  59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Main underlying assumptions 

The  same  assumptions  as  for  the  baseline  scenario  apply  for  all  aspects  as  stated 
earlier  for  the  baseline  scenario  (GDP  projections,  global  population  growth,  etc.), 
except for: 
  The bioenergy demand in EU28 evolves throughout the projection period in 

accordance with levels evaluated as for the GHG40/EE scenario. This implies that 
demand for biomass for energy is higher than the level assumed for the baseline 
scenario by 2050. Further, energy savings are estimated to develop in line with the 
GHG40/EE scenario, and are -29.3% in 2030 compared to the 2007 Baseline 
projections.  

  Demand for first and second generation biofuels within EU28 develops through 2050 

according to the levels as assumption for the GHG40/EE scenario. 

  Increased import of biomass to the EU is represented in the model framework 
through a reduction of the transport costs of biomass feedstocks27. The cost of 
importing feedstocks to EU28 is decreased evenly for industrial roundwood (sawn 
wood and pulp wood), wood chips, and wood pellets. This implies that import of 
wood for energy and material purposes are equally decreased for the scenario and 
the use of imported feedstock is not scrutinized further. Overall, the trade cost was 
decreased by roughly 12% for the year 2030, and 32% for 2050. The levels were 
chosen so that they incur a notable change in trade patterns compared to the 
Baseline scenario, while still representing a plausible change in costs. 

  All final trade of biomass are estimated endogenously within the GLOBIOM 

modelling framework. The cost of transporting wood products (e.g. sawnwood, 
chemical pulp, mechanical pulp, fibreboard, and plywood) within EU28 and globally 
is the same as for the baseline scenario.  

  The bioenergy demand in RoW evolves throughout the projection period in 

accordance with the levels assumed as for the baseline scenario. 

Key outcomes of the Increased EU Biomass Import scenario 

In  the  Increased  EU  Biomass  Import  scenario,  woody  biomass  trade  was  encouraged 
to  emulate  increased  reliance  on  imported  feedstock.  This  was  simulated  through  a 
predefined  lower  cost  for  importing  biomass  feedstock  to  EU.  The  product  that 
increased  the  most  in  terms  of  import  is  wood  pellets  from  Latin  America  and 
industrial  roundwood  from  the  Former  USSR.  Increasing  import  of  biomass 
feedstock  reduces  the  pressure  to  use  the  EU  forests  and  decreases  the 
development of SRC (Figure 23). The decrease in development of the SRC leads to 
similar area of cropland and grazing land in 2050 as in the baseline scenario.  

27 The change in trade cost is implemented in the model through a change of two parameters in the trade 
cost function, the reference trade cost and the price elasticity. The reference trade cost value specifies 
the starting cost of trade for a specific trade quantity, while the price elasticity influences how the trade 
cost  is  impacted  as  the  amount  of  trade  increases  or  decreases.  The  change  in  the  two  parameters 
provides the overall change in the trade cost. 

January 2016  60 

 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 23. Land use development in the LULUCF sector in the EU28 in the Increased 
EU Biomass Import scenario. 

Increased EU Biomass Import 

)
a
h
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(
a
e
r
A

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2010

Other natural land

Used forest

Unused forest

Grazing land

SRC

Cropland

2020

2030

2040

2050

As  seen  in  Figure  24,  the  imports  of  both  roundwood  and  wood  pellets  increase. 
Compared  to  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario,  the  production  of  materials  is 
marginally  higher  in  this  scenario,  related  to  the  increased  import  of  roundwood  of 
industrial quality from world regions with lower roundwood prices.  Similarly to the EU 
Emission  Reduction  scenario,  the  increase  in  EU  material  production  over  time  is 
mainly  intended  for  the  international  market,  as  the  semi-finished  products  are 
exported outside EU. 

The  largest  differences  to  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  are  seen  in  the 
increased amount of imported wood pellets, which leads to a much lower production of 
SRC for bioenergy purposes than in the EU Emission Reduction scenario, and removes 
the  need  of  using  roundwood  directly  for  energy.  That  is,  the  increasing  import  of 
wood  pellets  substitutes  biomass  from  SRC  and  roundwood  for  energy 
purposes. The avoided direct use of roundwood for energy purposes  is 78 Mm3, and 
the  production  of  SRC decreases  by  92  Mm3  compared  to  the  EU  Emission  Reduction 
scenario. 

January 2016  61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 24. EU28 flow of wood in the Increased EU Biomass Import scenario.* 

January 2016  62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

The clear increase in the import of roundwood and pellets to the EU is seen in Figure 
25,  Figure  26  and  Figure  27,  accentuating  the  development  seen  in  the  EU  Emission 
Reduction  scenario.  The  trade  partners  will  also  develop  somewhat  differently:  while 
North  America  remains  a  major  trade  partner  in  pellet  trade,  USA  is  projected  to 
decrease its share towards 2050. The main increase in pellet trade between 2010 and 
2030  is  projected  to  result  from  increased  EU  imports  from  the  former  Soviet  Union. 
After  2030,  pellet  imports  from  South-East  Asia  and  after  2040  especially  from  Latin 
America  and  Oceania  (mainly  Australia)  increase  heavily.  This  development  is 
especially important for the future land use development in RoW, as pellet production 
in  Latin  America  and  South-East  Asia  is  projected  to  develop  mainly  based  on 
plantation wood. The effects of the additional increases in the bioenergy demand as of 
2030  are  clearly  seen  in  the  development  of  pellet  imports,  whose  steady  increase 
until 2030 turns into a considerable increase after 2030, especially driven by increased 
imports from Canada and especially as of 2040, Latin America.  

Figure  25.  EU28  net  trade  of  wood  products  in  the  Increased  EU  Biomass  Import 
scenario. Positive figures denote EU net imports, negative figures EU net exports. 

Increased EU Biomass Import 

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

-20000

-40000

3

m
0
0
0
1

,
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
d
o
o
w

f
o
e
d
a
r
T

2010

2030

2050

Roundwood Woodchips

Boards

Sawnwood

Increased EU Biomass 
Import 

120000

t
0
0
0
1

,
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
d
o
o
w

f
o
e
d
a
r
T

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

2010
Pulp Wood pellets

2030

2050

January 2016  63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 26. Origin of EU28 pellets imports in 2010 and 2050.* 

2010, net pellet imports 4.4 Mt  

2030, net pellet imports 18.2 Mt 

Canada 
38% 

USA 
29% 

SSA 
2% 

SEA 
2% 

OCE 
1% 

CIS 
21% 

REU 
7% 

Latin 
America 
0% 

USA 
7% 

SSA 
3% 

SEA 
17% 

Canada 
22% 

CIS 
44% 

REU 
4% 

OCE 
1% 

Latin 
America 
2% 

2050, net pellet imports 87.4 Mt 

SSA 
1% 

USA 
1% 

SEA 
17% 

Latin 
America 
25% 

Canada 
30% 

CIS 
10% 

REU 
1% 

OCE 
15% 

*Abbreviations:  USA  –  United  States  of  America, SSA  –  Sub-Saharan  Africa,  SEA –  South-East  Asia, 
REU – Other West and Central Europe, OCE – Australia, CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States 
(Former Soviet Union) 

January 2016  64 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  27.  The  development  of  EU  pellet  imports  over  time  in  the  Increased  EU 
Biomass Import scenario, disaggregated by country of origin. 

EU net wood pellet imports 

USA

)
t

M

(

s
t
e

l
l

e
p
d
o
o
w

f
o
s
t
r
o
p
m

i

t
e
N

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Sub-Saharan Africa

South-East Asia

Rest of Europe

Australia

Latin America

Former Soviet
Union

Canada

January 2016  65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

7. Overview of the differences between the scenarios 
As  seen  for  the  analyzed  scenarios,  the  most  notable  shift  in  land  use  for  EU  is 
that  of  a  shift  from  unused  forest  to  used  forest,  and  an  increasing  area 
dedicated for the production of short-rotation coppice (SRC). This development 
is  driven  by  the  increased  bioenergy  demand  in  the  EU  and  rest  of  the  world,  and 
clearly  seen  in  all  the  scenarios,  and  accentuated  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction 
scenario  and  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  scenario.  The  changes  within  the  forest  area 
are elaborated in Table 4, Figure 28 and Figure 29. The share of used forest is noted 
to  vary  between  the  scenarios,  while  total  forest  land  area  only  changes  marginally 
between the scenarios, with a clear trend of net afforestation towards 2050. The most 
prominent difference between the scenarios is the effect of bioenergy demand beyond 
2030  on  the  area  of  used  forests:  the  high  emission  reduction  targets  in  the  EU 
Emission  Reduction  scenario  are  seen  to  increase  the  area  of  used  forests  in  2050 
from  124  million  ha  in  the  Baseline  scenario  to  129  million  ha.  However,  the  stable 
bioenergy demand beyond 2020 modelled in Constant EU Bioenergy Demand scenario 
will cause the area of used forests to stay at 120 million hectares at 2050, well below 
that  of  the  baseline.  Interestingly,  the  same  effect  is  seen  also  in  the  Increased  EU 
Biomass Import scenario: there, supporting the sourcing of bioenergy feedstock from 
outside the EU will result in the lowest area of forest used for wood harvests in the EU 
(119 mill. ha) of all the scenarios simulated.    

Table 4. Development of EU28 forest area in the different scenarios of this project.  

2010 

2030 
Mill. ha 

2050 

Total forest area 

154 

161 

167 

Baseline 

Area of used forest 
Afforestation 
(since 2000) 

105 

6 

116 

15 

124 

22 

Total forest area 

154 

161 

168 

EU Emission 
Scenario 

Area of used forest 
Afforestation 
(since 2000) 

105 

6 

115 

15 

129 

22 

ReceBio 
modelling 
results 

Constant EU 
Bioenergy 
Demand 

Increased 
RoW 
Bioenergy 
Demand  

Increased 
EU Biomass 
Import  

Total forest area 

154 

161 

167 

Area of used forest 

105 

113 

120 

Afforestation 
(since 2000) 

6 

15 

22 

Total forest area 

154 

160 

169 

Area of used forest 

105 

115 

131 

Afforestation 
(since 2000) 

6 

15 

22 

Total forest area 

154 

161 

167 

Area of used forest 

105 

113 

119 

Afforestation 
(since 2000) 

6 

15 

22 

January 2016  66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 28. Area of used forests in the EU28 in the different scenarios. 

Area of forests in the EU 

180000

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

)
a
h
0
0
0
1
(
a
e
r
A

0
2010

Total area of production forests 

Area of used forests 

2020

2030

Baseline
Constant EU Bioenergy Demand
Increased EU Biomass Imports

2040
EU Emission Reduction
Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand

2050

Figure 29. The area of used forests in the different scenarios. Here, the data is same 
as above but the scale is larger for easier comparison.  

Area of used forests in the EU 

135000

130000

)
a
h
0
0
0
1
(
a
e
r
A

125000

120000

115000

110000

105000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Baseline
Constant EU Bioenergy Demand
Increased EU Biomass Imports

EU Emission Reduction
Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand

A  notable  difference  in  land  use  between  the  scenarios  developed  within  this  project 
are seen in the areas of short rotation plantations (SRC and lignocellulosic perennials 
grown  on  cropland)  (Table  5  and  Figure  30).  Among  short  rotation  plantations,  this 
study focuses on the analysis of SRC as it  is considered to have similar potential end 
uses as wood biomass from forests. The development of the perennials is given below 
to enable comparison with previous studies.  The area of SRC is projected to  increase 
from  almost  negligible  area  in  2010  to  3.4  Mha  by  2050  in  the  Baseline  scenario.  In 
the  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario,  where  no  additional  bioenergy  policies 

January 2016  67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

are  adopted  after  2020,  the  development  of  SRC  is  much  less  prominent.  In  this 
scenario, the production area of SRC is 0.9 Mha by 2030, and only 0.3 Mha in 2050. In 
this  scenario,  the  bioenergy  demand  is  assumed  to  increase  in line  with  the  Baseline 
scenario until 2020, but to remain constant thereafter. At the initial very low levels of 
SRC,  it is  more  profitable  to increase  SRC  production  to  respond  to  higher  bioenergy 
demand  than  expanding  the  already  exploited  forest  harvests.  Over  time,  however, 
additional  areas  for  SRC  will  become  more  scarce  and  the  bioenergy  demand  will  be 
increasingly  satisfied  by  biomass  from  forestry,  causing  the  area  of  SRC  to  decline 
towards 2050. On the  contrary, the increasing high bioenergy  demand beyond 2030, 
as formulated in the GHG40/EE and adopted in the three other scenarios, leads to an 
almost  three-fold  increase  in  the  area  of  SRC  by  2050  as  compared  to  the  baseline. 
Encouraging  the  biomass  trade  in  the  Increased  EU  Biomass  Import  scenario 
decreases  the  amount  of  SRC  needed  for  energy  production  in  the  EU  significantly, 
resulting in only a slightly larger area of SRC in 2050 than in the Baseline.  

Table  5.  Development  of  the  area  of  SRC*  and  perennial  lignocellulosic  crops**  in 
EU28 in the different scenarios (Millions of hectares).  

2010 

2020 

2030 

2050 

Mill. ha 

SRC* 

0.01 

1.1 

2.5 

3.4 

ReceBio 
modelling 
results 

Baseline 

Perennial 
lignocellulosic 
crops** 

0.02 

2.0 

2.8 

3.1 

EU 
Emission 
Scenario 

Constant 
EU 
Bioenergy 
Demand 

Increased 
RoW 
Bioenergy 
Demand 

Increased 
EU 
Biomass 
import 

SRC 

0.01 

1.1 

2.7 

8.9 

Perennial 
lignocellulosic 
crops 

0.02 

1.7 

2.3 

6.1 

SRC 

0.01 

1.1 

0.9 

0.3 

Perennial 
lignocellulosic 
crops 

0.02 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

SRC 

0.01 

1.1 

2.7 

9.4 

Perennial 
lignocellulosic 
crops 

0.02 

1.7 

2.3 

6.1 

SRC 

0.01 

0.7 

1.6 

4.0 

Perennial 
lignocellulosic 
crops 

0.02 

1.7 

2.3 

6.2 

*SRC (short rotation coppice) here includes fast-growing tree species such as willow, poplar and eucalyptus 
that are established and managed under an intensive short rotation regime 
**Perennial lignocellulosic crops here include crops of miscanthus and switchgrass. These are grasses used 
for bioenergy production, which are included under cropland category in the accounting of land use and land 
use change.  

January 2016  68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 30. Area of cropland dedicated to production of short rotation coppice (SRC) in 
EU28 in the different scenarios.

SRC in Europe 

)
a
h
0
0
0
1
(
a
e
r
A

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

2010

2020

2030

Year 

2040

2050

Baseline

EU Emission Reduction

Constant EU Bioenergy Demand

Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand

Increased EU Biomass Imports

When comparing the cropping area  of SRC and perennials in 2010 shown in Table 5, 
some  deviations  can  be  noted  between  the  baseline  scenario  and  the  data  collected 
within  the  Task  1  of  this  study,  which  reported  0.5  million  hectares  of  willow  and 
poplar as of 2011. This is due to the fact that the model starts from the year 2000 and 
thereafter provides data for each 10 year step, while the estimates provided in Task 1 
were  instead  based  on  a  literature  overview  and  data  provided  by  AEBIOM,  the 
European Biomass Association. While it is interesting to note that the literature review 
points to higher amount of areas being used  for SRC in 2010 than that of the model 
results, implying that the model is underestimating the amount of SRC for that year, 
the difference can be considered as marginal as the overall levels are so low for 2010.  

Nevertheless,  it  should  be  noted  that  there  are  large  uncertainties  surrounding  the 
future  development  of  the  fast-growing  biomass  for  energy.  Evidence  from  other 
studies  and  discussions  with  experts  suggest  that  the  development  of  SRC  may  not 
follow  the  price  signals  as  economic  models  predict.  Farmer  behaviour  does  not 
usually  purely  reflect  price  development.  Issues  such  as  institutional  barriers,  future 
agricultural policies, loss of flexibility in terms of crop rotation and the lack of income 
over  the  establishment  period  of  the  crop  affect  the  farmers’  decision  making 
behaviour  as  well.  Furthermore,  the  choice  of  land  to  grow  the  energy  crops,  future 
yield potentials, and the value of long time selling contracts are all  issues that play a 
role when it comes to the actual future development of these feedstocks, but may not 
be fully represented in any model. 

January 2016  69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

When  comparing  the  use  of  wood  for  material  and  energy  production  between  the 
various scenarios (Figure 31 and Table 6), it is seen that the material use of wood 
is  projected  to  increase  in  all  scenarios.  This  increase  is  the  most  subtle  in 
the  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario,  while  in  the  other  policy 
scenarios, the increased bioenergy demand goes together with a higher level 
of material production. As presented in the scenario results, in 2050, the energy 
use  of  wood  is  the  highest  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  and  the 
other  two  scenarios  using  the  same  projection  for  EU  bioenergy  demand 
(Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  and  Increased  EU  Biomass  Import 
scenarios). In 2030, the energy use of wood is somewhat smaller in these scenarios 
than in the Baseline,  and following, also the total use of  wood. This is caused by the 
higher  energy  efficiency  assumed  in  these  scenarios  than  in  the  Baseline,  shown 
especially in a lower amount of firewood needed for energy than in the Baseline.   

Figure  31.  Total  use  of  wood  in  the  EU28  in  the  scenarios,  including  imported 
biomass feedstocks.  

Baseline 

EU 
Emission 
Reduction 

Constant 
EU 
Bioenergy 
Demand 

Increased 
RoW 
Bioenergy 
Demand 

Increased 
EU 
Biomass 
import 

)
3
m
M

(

e
s
u
d
o
o
W

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2010

2030

2050

2030

2050

2030

2050

2030

2050

2030

2050

Use of wood for material

Use of wood for energy

SRC for energy

Note that this figure represents the total amount of woody biomass used as input for material and energy 
production.  As  in  Table  3,  industrial  by-products  are  counted  twice:  first  included  in  the  total  roundwood 
arriving to the forest-based industry and used in the production of materials, and second time as sawdust, 
shavings or bark used in the production of pulp, particleboard, or energy. This is why the total consumption 
is higher than the sum of harvests and imports. Please refer to the flowcharts for a detailed view of the flow 
of the woody biomass. 

January 2016  70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Table 6. The share  of  wood used for material and energy production in the different 
scenarios.  

Scenario 

Baseline 

EU Emission Reduction 

Constant EU Bioenergy 
Demand 

Increased RoW Bioenergy 
Demand 

Energy use 

Material use 

Energy use 

Material use 

Energy use 

Material use 

Energy use 

Material use 

2010 

36% 

64% 

36% 

64% 

36% 

64% 

36% 

64% 

2030 
39% 

61% 

38% 

62% 

36% 

64% 

38% 

62% 

2050 

38% 

62% 

48% 

52% 

35% 

65% 

48% 

52% 

Increased EU Biomass 
Imports 
55% 
Note  that  this  table  is constructed  using  the  same  approach  as  in  Table  3.  This  implies  that  the  shares  of 
material and energy production are calculated as input of wood and material industries. As in  Table 3 and 
contrary to Figure 31 above, SRC is here included as energy use of wood.  

Material use 

62% 

64% 

36% 

38% 

45% 

Energy use 

Figure  32  shows  that  the  total  forest  harvests  are  higher  in  the  baseline  than  in  the 
policy  scenarios  until  2030,  showing  a  clear  increase  from  2010  through  2030.  After 
2030, the total harvest level  continues to increase in the baseline, but not as rapidly 
as before, caused by slightly decreasing harvests of wood for direct  energy use. This 
development  is  largely  driven  by  the  decreased  use  of  firewood.  On  the  contrary,  in 
the  EU  Emission  Reduction  Scenario,  as  well  as  in  the  Increased  RoW  Bioenergy 
Demand  scenario,  the  harvest  level  increases  notably  after  2030.  This  results  in  a 
considerably  higher  harvest  level  in  2050  for  these  scenarios  than  for  the  baseline 
scenario.  In  the  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  and  especially  in  the  Increased  EU 
Biomass  Import  scenarios,  the  total  harvests  are  on  a  clearly  lower  level  than  in  the 
other scenarios, although increasing slightly throughout the projection period.  

January 2016  71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 32. Total forest harvest* in solid wood equivalent, measured over bark (SWE 
o.b.) in the EU28 in the different scenarios. 

900

800

700

Forest harvests within the EU28 

Baseline

EU Emission Reduction

EU Constant Bioenergy Demand

Increased EU Biomass Imports

Increased RoW Bioenergy
Demand

600

Total harvests 

)
3
m
M

(

s
t
s
e
v
r
a
H

500

400

300

200

100

Harvests for material use 

Harvests for direct energy use 

0
2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

*The category “Harvests for direct energy use” combines harvests of forest residues, firewood, sawlogs and 
pulplogs that are used for energy as such, or after chipping and/or pelletization. “Harvests for material use” 
shows  the  harvested  amount  of  wood  that  is  used  for  material  production  in  the  forest  industries  and 
production  of  other  wood  products  (part  of  this  volume  will  eventually  become  industrial  residue  and  be 
used as energy as well). Total harvests is the aggregate of harvests for energy and material use. 

Figure  33  shows  the  differences  between  the  scenarios  in  the  harvest  assortments. 
The  shares  shown  in  the  figure  are  direct  results  of  the  developments  seen  between 
harvests for material and energy use: material production (esp. sawmill and plywood 
industries)  emphasizes  the  use  of  sawlogs  over  pulplogs,  and  the  development  of 
sawlog  harvests  follows  the  trends  seen  in  the  harvests  for  material.  The  harvest  of 
pulplogs  is  seen  to  react  on  the  changes  of  bioenergy  demand  over  time.  This  is 
especially  a  results  of  the  direct  use  of  roundwood  for  energy  purposes  seen  in  the 
results in the future. 

January 2016  72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  33.  Harvest  volumes  of  sawlogs  and  pulplogs  in  the  EU28  in  the  different 
scenarios in SWE o.b. 

Harvests by assortments 

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

)
3
m
0
0
0
1
(
e
m
u
o
v

l

t
s
e
v
r
a
H

0
2010

Sawlogs 

Pulplogs 

2020

2030

2040

2050

Baseline

EU Emission Reduction

EU Constant Bioenergy Demand

Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand

Increased EU Biomass Imports

Price of wood and wood products in the EU 

The  prices  of  harvested  wood  and  wood  products  increase  in  all  scenarios  over  time 
(Figure 34). The price increase is generally the highest in the EU Emission Reduction 
and  Increased  RoW  Bioenergy  Demand  scenarios,  with  the  exception  of  sawnwood, 
which  reaches  highest  prices  in  the  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario.  For 
harvested  wood,  pulplog  price  is  projected  to  increase  faster  than  the  sawlog  prices, 
reflecting  the  increasing  demand  and  competition  of  resources  under  high  bioenergy 
demand.  This  development  is  especially  prominent  in  the  EU  Emission Reduction  and 
RoW  Bioenergy  Demand  scenarios,  where  the  price  of  pulplogs  is  projected  to  more 
than double by 2050, compared to the price level in 2010. In these scenarios, the use 
of roundwood for direct energy considerably increases the demand, and consequently 
the price, of pulplogs. It is notable, however, that also the price of sawlogs increases 
more than 60% between 2010 and 2050, indicating that forest owners will in general 
be able to sell wood at notably better prices. 

The  price  development  of  the  wood  products  is  generally  more  modest  than  that  of 
harvested  wood,  with  sawnwood  prices  in  the  EU  increasing  by  5  to  15%,  and 
particleboard prices increasing by 10 to 25% from 2010 to 2050. This relates partly to 
raw  material  costs  being  only  about  50%  of  total  cost  of  producing  (final)  wood 
products.  Other  parts  of  total  costs  (investment,  labor,  energy)  are  assumed  to  stay 
constant over time. Moreover, increased bioenergy demand increases the price of the 
industrial by-products (here shown for wood chips). That is, sawmill profitability will in 
the  future  be  more  connected  to  the  total  use  of  the  biomass  volumes,  including the 
by-products,  and  not  only  to  the  volume  of  sawnwood  produced.  Wood  pellet  prices 

January 2016  73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

show instead a more dramatic development: the pellet price in the EU is projected to 
increase dramatically in all scenarios, reaching levels as high as seven times the price 
of 2010 expected for 2050 in the Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand scenario. Here, it 
should be remembered that there is only little historical data for pellet trade available 
compared to other products, and the future projections for pellet prices are hence only 
indicative.  Still,  similar  development  to  pellets  price  increase  is  also  seen  in  the 
development of the  SRC and by-products prices. That is, products that are used only 
for  energy  have  higher  price  increase  than  products  that  are  used  also  for  material 
use.  This  reflects  the  higher  increase  of  energy  demand  in  respect  to  material 
demand.  

The  price  development  of  material  wood  products  is  linked  to  bioenergy  demand 
through by-products. Higher demand for bioenergy increases by-product prices, which 
is  seen  in  Figure  34  in  the  development  of  wood  chips  price.  On  the  one  hand,  this 
tends  to  increase  particle  board  production  costs  and  prices,  because  particle  board 
production  uses  by-products  as  input.  On  the  other  hand,  higher  by-products  prices 
decrease  sawnwood  production  costs  and  prices,  because  by-products  form  an 
essential  part  of  sawmills’  income.  This  development  is  seen  most  clearly  in  the  EU 
Emission Reduction scenario and Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand scenario, but also 
to  a  lesser  extent  in  the  other  scenarios.  In  the  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand 
scenario,  the  particleboard  price  even  decreases  after  2040,  reflecting  the  reduced 
amount of by-products demanded for bioenergy production. For sawnwood, however, 
the price development between the scenarios shows a very different pattern. Contrary 
to  particleboard  production  which  competes  for  the  feedstock  with  bioenergy 
production,  sawnwood  production  produces  both  sawnwood  and  bioenergy  feedstock 
in  the  form  of  by-products  (sawdust,  wood  chips  and  bark).  That  is,  the  increased 
demand  for  by-products  supports  the  profitability  of  sawmills,  and  helps  to  both 
increase  the  production  and  keep  the  prices  down,  as  is  seen  in  the  scenarios  with 
increasing  bioenergy  demand.  In  the  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario,  the 
demand  for  by-products  is  much  lower,  the  amount  of  sawnwood  produced  much 
smaller  (see  Figure  19),  and  consequently,  the  overall  profitability  of  sawnwood 
production lower. This drives the sawnwood prices upwards, resulting in clearly higher 
sawnwood  price  in  the  Constant  EU  Bioenergy  Demand  scenario  than  in  the  other 
scenarios.  

January 2016  74 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 34. Price development of harvested wood and wood products in the scenarios, 
relative to the price in 2010. 

Sawlogs 

Pulplogs 

2.40

2.20

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

2.40

2.20

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Sawnwood 

Particleboard 

1.30

1.25

1.20

1.15

1.10

1.05

1.00

1.30

1.25

1.20

1.15

1.10

1.05

1.00

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Wood pellets 

Wood chips 

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

January 2016  75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Trade of wood biomass 

In  all  the  scenarios  analyzed  in  this  project,  the  current  overall  trend  in  the  EU 
trade is expected to remain as it is today: EU is a net importer of roundwood, 
pellets  and  wood  pulp,  and  a  net  exporter  of  sawnwood  and  wood  boards 
(Figure 35).  

EU  net  imports  are  seen  to  increase  considerably  towards  2050  in  all  scenarios  for 
pulplogs,  sawlogs  and  wood  pellets,  compared  to  the  2010  amounts.  As  could  be 
expected,  the  trade  increase  is  the  largest  in  the  Increased  EU  Biomass  Import 
scenario, where especially the wood pellet imports increases heavily compared to the 
other  scenarios.  However,  as  the  trade  of  wood  pellets  is  a  relatively  new  sector,  its 
development over time is inherently related with high uncertainties.  

Of  the  EU  net  exports,  sawnwood  is  the  wood  product  that  is  projected  to  grow  the 
most  by  2050  in  all  of  the  scenarios.  This  development  is  the  strongest  in  the 
Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand scenario, where countries outside of the EU use  to 
a  larger  extent  their  domestic  biomass  sources  for  energy  purposes,  and  thereby 
increasingly rely on EU as a source for imported sawnwood and particleboard.    

January 2016  76 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  35.  EU28  net  trade  of  wood  biomass  in  the  different  scenarios  in  2010  and 
2050 (negative figures stand for EU exports, positive for EU imports). 

Net trade of wood biomass  in 2010, 2030 and 2050 

Exports 
Exports 

Imports 

Pulplogs (Mm3)

Sawlogs (Mm3)

Wood pellets (Mt)

Chemical pulp (Mt)

Mechanic pulp (Mt)

Particleboard (Mm3)

Plywood (Mm3)

Sawnwood (Mm3)

2010

Baseline 2030

Baseline 2050

EU Emission Reduction 2030

EU Emission Reduction 2050

Constant EU Bioenergy Demand 2030

Constant EU Bioenergy Demand 2050

Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand 2030

Increased RoW Bioenergy Demand 2050

Increased EU Biomass Imports 2030

Increased EU Biomass Imports 2050

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

January 2016  77 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

8. Analysis of central modeling assumptions 
After  constructing  the  scenarios,  some  central  modelling  assumptions  were  further 
scrutinized to assess their effects on the modelling outcome. Here, we focus especially 
on  changes  in  the  EU  bioenergy  demand,  availability  of  different  types  of  biomass 
feedstocks, and cascading use of wood.  

The  results  are  compared  to  the  scenario  results  of  the  EU  Emission  Reduction 
scenario,  abbreviated  as  REDU  throughout  this  chapter.  This  policy  scenario  depicts 
increased demand for bioenergy and was chosen for this analysis as it also serves as 
the basis for the other policy scenarios.  

8.1. 

Changes in the EU bioenergy demand 

This  analysis  evaluates  the  effects  of  increasing  or  decreasing  bioenergy  demand  in 
the  EU,  and  whether  the  changes  of  the  feedstock  are  linear  with  respect  to  the 
change  in  the  bioenergy  demand.  The  key  aspects  addressed  in  this  analysis  are:  i) 
changes  in  feedstocks  used  in  the  bioenergy  sector  as  the  bioenergy  demand 
marginally  increases/decreases,  and  ii)  assessing  if  there  are  linear  relationships 
between the change in feedstock consumption and the change in bioenergy demand. 

For  this,  demand  for  biomass  for  heat  and  power  was  gradually  decreased  and 
increased from the level of the EU Emission Reduction scenario (REDU). The changes 
were done as a linear decrease or increase, starting from the demand as of 2010, and 
resulting in a -25% to +25% change in bioenergy demand by year 2050 as compared 
to  the  demand  level  of  the  REDU  (see  Figure  36).  That  is,  the  percentage  changes 
shown in the figure represent the change as of the year 2050.  

Figure 36. The projected change in the EU bioenergy demand, using EU28 bioenergy 
demand in 2050 in the EU Emission Reduction scenario (REDU) as a reference.  

d
n
a
m
e
d
y
g
r
e
n
e
o
b
e
h
t
n

i

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

)

%

(

U
D
E
R
o
t
d
e
r
a
p
m
o
c

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

2010

2030

+25% 

+20% 

+15% 

+10% 

+5% 

REDU 

-5% 

-10% 

-15% 

-20% 

-25% 

2050

Year 

There is a clear difference in the impact of the changes in bioenergy demand 
as of 2030 and 2050, showing that some feedstocks adapt more quickly to demand 
changes  than  others  (Figure  37).  Furthermore,  a  majority  of  the  feedstocks 
assessed are seen to have a linear relationship to the EU bioenergy demand. 
In 2030, the change in bioenergy demand has a large impact on the use of roundwood 

January 2016  78 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

for  energy  in  relative  terms,  but  in  absolute  terms  the  impact  is  much  higher  on  the 
volume  of  SRC  and  wood  pellets  used  for  energy.  The  changes  in  the  bioenergy 
demand affect especially the use of  roundwood directly for energy production: with a 
10% decrease in bioenergy demand by 2030, no roundwood would be directly used for 
energy  (a  decrease  of  3  Mm3).  Conversely,  a  similar  increase  in  the  total  bioenergy 
demand  by  2030  (the  trajectory  leading  to  a  20%  increase  by  2050)  is  estimated  to 
increase  the  use  of  roundwood  for  energy  by  roughly  150%  (7.5  Mm3).  However, 
although  the  relative  changes  in  roundwood  use  for  energy  are  large,  the  absolute 
volumes  are  still  very  small  compared  to  changes  in  demand  for  other  feedstocks. 
Conversely,  other  feedstocks  react  more  mildly  to  changes  in  bioenergy  demand  by 
2030 in  relative  terms,  but  the  volumes  in  total  are in  much larger  scale  (see  Figure 
38  below).  For  SRC,  there  is  roughly  a  2  to  1  relationship  between  the  percentage 
change in the consumption of SRC and the percentage change in bioenergy demand: 
for example, it is seen that if the bioenergy demand is increased by 2%, then the use 
of SRC increases by 4%. For wood pellet import, the relationship between the changes 
in imported amount and bioenergy demand is about 1:1 – a 2% increase or decrease 
in  the  total  bioenergy  demand  increases  or  decreases  the  amount  of  wood  pellets 
imported similarly by 2%.  Consumption of other feedstocks is not similarly impacted 
by  the  induced  changes  in  bioenergy  demand,  and  their  consumption  remains  more 
stable.  

By 2050, there is more time for the markets to adapt, leading to especially a relative 
increase  in  the  use  of  imported  wood  pellets  compared  to  2030.  This  releases  the 
pressure  to  use  roundwood  directly  for  energy,  and  although  they  still  increase  and 
decrease  relatively  more  than  the  total  bioenergy  demand,  this  change  is  not  as 
dramatic as in 2030. For SRC, a decrease in the total bioenergy demand in 2050 leads 
into  an  almost  similar  percentage  decrease  in  the  volume  of  SRC  used  for  energy, 
while an increase in the total bioenergy demand is shown as a slightly smaller relative 
increase in the amount of SRC used for energy. This reflects the increasing scarcity of 
land,  reducing  the  possibilities  for  new  SRC  plantations  when  the  existing  area  is 
already large. 

January 2016  79 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  37.  Linearity  of  the  feedstock  use  compared  to  changes  in  the  EU  bioenergy 
demand.  The  dots  represent  the  level  of  feedstock  use  with  respect  to  the  change  in 
the  total  bioenergy  demand  (x-axis);  the  broken  line  represents  a  1:1  relationship 
between  the  change  in  bioenergy  demand  and  feedstock  use.  Please  note  that  this 
figure  presents  only  values  relative  to  REDU:  the  absolute  amounts  of  feedstock  use 
are shown in Figure 38 below. 

Change in the 
feedstock use, 
compared to 
REDU in 2030 

300%

200%

100%

-20%

-10%

0%

0%

Change in the 
feedstock use, 
compared to 
REDU in 2050 

-100%

-200%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

10%

20%

Change in the total 
bioenergy demand 

10%
30%
20%
Change in the total  
bioenergy demand 

January 2016  80 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

The  total  volume  of  each  feedstock  used  for  energy,  as  well  as  their  relative  shares, 
are shown in Figure 38. As shown in the previous figures, the amount of industrial by-
products  remains  almost  the  same,  independent  of  the  level  of  the  total  bioenergy 
demand.  However, in the reference  scenario (ER) they provide more  than half of the 
bioenergy  feedstock  in  2030,  and  about  one-third  in  2050.  With  lower  levels  of 
bioenergy  demand,  their  role  is  accentuated,  and  with  higher  levels  of  bioenergy 
demand,  the  increased  demand  for  bioenergy  is  fulfilled  by  an  increased  use  of 
roundwood  for  energy  and  SRC  in  2030,  and  increased  use  of  roundwood  for  energy 
and imported pellets in 2050. Here, it is shown clearly that in 2050, the share of SRC 
will  not increase  as  heavily  with  the increase  in  bioenergy  demand  as  it  did in  2030. 
On  the  other  hand,  roundwood  share  continues  to  increase  as  this  feedstock  is  more 
readily available.  

Figure  38.  The  total  volume  of  the  different  wood  biomass  feedstocks  used  with  a 
changing total demand for bioenergy, and the relative shares of the feedstocks.  Note 
that the scale is different for absolute volumes of feedstock use in 2030 and 2050.    

250

200

150

100

50

0

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Wood used for energy in 2030, m3 

Share of different wood energy 
feedstocks in 2030 

Wood used for energy in 2050, m3 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Share of different wood energy 
feedstocks in 2050 

January 2016  81 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

8.2. 

Availability of biomass feedstocks for energy 

One  of  the  major  uncertainties  in  modelling  of  biomass  resources  is  that  of  future 
feedstock  availability.  To  better  understand  how  the  results  presented  within  this 
project depend on the  assumptions on the availability of lignocellulosic feedstocks for 
energy  purposes,  we  evaluated  the  substitution  effects  between  various  feedstocks 
being  used  for  bioenergy  purposes  within  EU28.  In  particular,  we  evaluate  how 
decreasing  use  of  one  feedstock  for  energy  purposes  increases  the  use  of  other 
competing feedstocks, when the bioenergy demand to be fulfilled remains unchanged.  

For this analysis, the availability of SRC, roundwood for energy, imported pellets, and 
forest residues was decreased from the levels projected in the EU Emission Reduction 
scenario. The decrease  was made at  four levels: -5%, -10%, -20% and -40%  of the 
availability in 2050. The decrease was modelled as a linear reduction over time; that 
is,  the  reduction  in  2030  was  -2.5%,  -7.5%,  -10%  and  -20%.  The  total  bioenergy 
demand was kept at the level as of the EU Emission Reduction scenario.  

Figure  39.  The  projected  change  in  the  feedstock  availability,  using  availability  in 
2050 in the EU Emission Reduction scenario (REDU) as a reference. 

s
k
c
o
t
s
d
e
e
f

f
o
y
t
i
l
i

b
a

l
i

a
v
a
e
h
t
n

i

n
o
i
t
c
u
d
e
R

)

U
D
E
R
f
o
%

(

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

2010

2030

REDU 

-5% 

-10% 

-20% 

-40% 

2050

Year 

It  was  seen  that  in  the  short  run  (between  2010  and  2030),  a  reduction  of 
one of the feedstocks generally increases the uses of roundwood and SRC for 
energy.  However,  in  the  long  run  (by  2050),  increasing  use  of  industrial  by-
products and imported wood pellets becomes more prominent. In other words, 
if  the  use  of  SRC  decreases,  then  a  large  share  of  the  resulting  gap  of  feedstock 
needed for energy purposes will be fulfilled by roundwood until 2030, and pellets and 
roundwood  by  2050  (Figure  40).  Vice  versa,  if  the  pellet  imports  decrease,  then  a 
large share of this reduction will be replaced by biomass from SRC. This result is seen 
especially when the feedstocks are restricted more strictly (-20% or -40%). However, 
in 2050, when only a small reduction (-5% or -10%) in the feedstock availability was 
induced, the direct  energy use  of  roundwood  was seen to  substitute most  of the gap 
from a reduced amount of imported wood pellets: SRC was increased more when the 
imported pellets were restricted more heavily (-20% or -40%).  

A  reduction  in  the  use  of  roundwood  for  energy,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be 
compensated to a high extent through an increased use of industrial by-products and 

January 2016  82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

SRC  for  bioenergy  purposes  (Figure  40).  When  the  availability  of  roundwood  for 
energy was reduced, the remaining bioenergy demand was satisfied especially through 
an  increased  amount  of  industrial  by-products  used  for  energy,  together  with 
increased  production  of  SRC.  This  increase  in  the  use  of  industrial  by-products  for 
energy was also seen to affect the material side: when the energy use of the industrial 
by-products  increased  by  9  Mm3,  their  material  use  decreased  by  about  4  Mm3.  The 
deficit  in  the  material  feedstock  was  compensated  by  an  increase  of  12  Mm3  in  the 
total  EU  harvest  level.  A  reduction  in  the  availability  of  forest  residues,  on  the  other 
hand, causes a similar effect to a reduction of pellet imports, with most of the biomass 
deficit replaced by SRC. 

January 2016  83 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 40. The effect of a reduction in one type of feedstock on the use of other wood 
biomass  for  energy  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  Scenario  in  2030  and  2050,  in 
changes in volume, and in feedstock share. 

Changes in the energy use of wood, 2030 

Reduction  
in SRC 

Reduction  
in pulplogs 

Reduction  
in imported pellets 

Reduction  
in forest residues 

Changes in the energy use of wood, 2050 

Reduction  
in SRC 

Reduction  
in pulplogs 

Reduction  
in imported pellets 

Reduction  
in forest residues 

E
W
S
3
m
M

,
e
m
u
o
V

l

E
W
S
3
m
M

,
e
m
u
o
V

l

10

6

2

-2

-6

-10

70

50

30

10

-10

-30

-50

-70

Reduced 
SRC 

2050 
Reduced 
pulplogs 

Reduced 
pellet imports 

Reduced 
forest residues 

2030 

Reduced 
SRC 

Reduced 
pulplogs 

Reduced 
pellet imports 

Reduced 
forest residues 

100%

y
g
r
e
n
e
r
o
f

s
s
a
m
o
b

i

l

a
t
o
t

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

y
g
r
e
n
e
r
o
f

i

s
s
a
m
o
b
y
d
o
o
w

l

a
t
o
t

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

%
3
-

%
5
-

%
0
1
-

%
0
2
-

%
3
-

%
5
-

%
0
1
-

%
0
2
-

%
3
-

%
5
-

%
0
1
-

%
0
2
-

%
3
-

%
5
-

%
0
1
-

%
0
2
-

%
5
-

%
0
1
-

%
0
2
-

%
0
4
-

%
5
-

%
0
1
-

%
0
2
-

%
0
4
-

%
5
-

%
0
1
-

%
0
2
-

%
0
4
-

%
5
-

%
0
1
-

%
0
2
-

%
0
4
-

January 2016  84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

8.3. 

Cascading use of biomass  

The  analysis  aims  to  evaluate  the  impact  of  changes  in  cascading  use  of  biomass 
within the EU28. Cascading refers to re-using biomass: the feedstock is first used as a 
bio-based  final  product,  and  then  at  least  once  more  for  materials  or  energy.  The 
incentive for cascading use is to improve resource efficiency and increase the lifetime 
of  biomass  resources28.  In  this  analysis,  we  are  especially  interested  in  how  the 
cascading  use  of  wood  is  developing  over  time  and  how  potential  policies  aiming  to 
increase  the  cascading  use  of  wood  may  inherently  impact  the  amount  of  wood  raw 
material  needed  and  the  other  related  sectors.  As  for  other  analyses  of  the  model 
assumptions,  this  section  as  well  uses  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  as  the 
comparison point for the analysis.  

Cascade factor 

In  order  to  quantify  the  cascading  use,  a  number  of  indicators  or  proxys  has  been 
suggested. Overall, these “cascade factors” describes the relation between the use of 
wood  raw  material  (roundwood  and  other  wood  resources),  and  the  roundwood 
consumption.  In  essence,  the  cascade  factor  expresses  the  extent  to  which  woody 
biomass  is  being  used  multiple  times  throughout  the  various  material  and  bioenergy 
value  chains.  Mantau  (2012)  has  developed  a  detailed  wood  flow  chart  to  calculate 
cascade  factors  for  different  cascading  chains  based  on  the  input-output  relation  of 
wood for certain parts of the wood value chain. Indufor (2013)29 proposed a “simple” 
and  a  “total”  cascade  factor  for  the  chain  of  woody  biomass  use.  Carus  (2014)  has 
also proposed a “biomass utilization factor” the follows the chain utilization of biomass 
from  harvest  to  subsequent  use  through  various  sectors.  These  cascade  factors 
provide a useful indicator for comparisons of the extent of cascading between different 
value  chains  and  also  over  time.  It  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  that  while  the 
cascading  factor  expresses  the  extent  to  which  the  woody  biomass  is  used  multiple 
times  for  material  and  bioenergy  purposes,  there  are  technical  and  biophysical 
restrictions  as  to  the  possibility  of  increasing  cascading  of  wood  within  some  forest-
based industries. For example, sawmills and plywood can only use stemwood for their 
production, and mechanical pulp production requires a certain share of fresh fibres as 
input to the production.  

For this project, we estimated a cascade factor and its development over time in line 
with  the  approach  as  suggested  by  Indufor  (2013)  for  the  calculation  of  a  simple 
cascade  factor  (Table  7).  The  cascade  factor  is  thus  calculated  as  the  ratio  between 
the  consumption  of  woody  biomass  for  material  and  bioenergy  use,  and  the 
consumption  of  roundwood.  It  is  important  to  note  that  while  the  cascade  factor  as 
estimated  within  this  project  tries  to  emulate  the  approach  suggested  by  Indufor  as 
closely as possible, there are some differences between the two estimates. First, while 
Indufor’s30 roundwood equivalent (RWE) is in essence similar to our conversion to m3 
of solid wood, there may be some differences in the conversion factors used. Second, 

28 See Task 2 Report for a more thorough description of cascading use. 
29  “A  simple  “cascade  factor”  is  the  ratio  between  the  total  wood  raw  material  supply,  expressed  as 
“roundwood  equivalent”  (RWE),  and  the  fraction  of  it which  is  “roundwood”  (from  the forest  and  other 
wooded  land,  parks,  etc.).  It  indicates  the  extent  to  which  that  roundwood  has  its  use  multiplied 
throughout  the  various  value  chains.  A  total  cascade  factor  is  the  ratio  of  the  total  wood  raw  material 
supply  (RWE)  to  all  fresh  wood  (roundwood  +  forest  residues)  has  its  use  multiplied  throughout  the 
various value chains.” Indufor (2013). 

30  RWE (overbark) refers  to roundwood equivalent which is  a measure used by Indufor to make all wood-

based raw materials comparable. Indufor (2013). 

January 2016  85 

 
 
                                           
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

the  cascade  factor  as  estimated  within  this  project  does  not  account  for  the  use  of 
recovered  paper  within  the  pulp  &  paper  sector,  as  the  coverage  of  the  forest-based 
industries within this project stops at the production of mechanical and chemical pulp. 
In  Indufor’s  study,  recovered  paper  is  accounted  for  in  the  estimates  of  wood-based 
material use. These two points are the main underlying reasons  for differences in the 
cascade factors as  of 2010 between the two projects.  Given these differences in how 
the cascade factor is calculated, the estimates provided in this project and that of the 
Indufor (2013) project are not directly comparable. It is as such important to focus on 
the direction of change over time in the two studies, rather than comparing the exact 
numbers. 

Table  7:  Comparison  of  the  project  results  and  Indufor  estimates  of  EU28  wood 
related cascade factors, by end uses and development over time. 

Study 

Indufor 

ReceBio EU Emission 
Reduction scenario 

Reference year 

2011 

2016 

2010 

2030 

Bioenergy 
consumption** 

Material 
consumption 

Roundwood 
consumption*** 

RWE* 

293 

648 

454 

2050 
Million m3 

360 

297 

306 

413 

679 

529 

607 

671 

495 

539 

578 

694 

Cascade factor 

2.07 

2.10 

1.53 

1.58 

1.56 

* RWE refers to roundwood equivalent (over bark). 
** The calculation of bioenergy consumption does not account for wood from SRC nor the use of imported 
pellets. 
*** In ReceBio: Roundwood consumption does not here include the consumption of forest residues to allow 
for consistency with the estimates as of Indufor.  

The cascade factor is estimated to increase from 1.53 as of 2010, to 1.58 as of 2030. 
This  increase  is  in  line  with  the  Indufor  study,  who  also  projected  that  the  cascade 
factor  will  increase  until  2016.  This  result  indicates  that  the  forest-based 
industries,  and  the  part  of  the  bioenergy  sector  covered  by  the  cascade 
factor,  are  in  the  short  run  (between  2010  and  2030)  able  to  intensify  their 
use of industrial by-products for material and bioenergy purposes more than 
that of their increasing use of roundwood. This development is to a large extent 
driven by the increasing production of wood products within the EU, which extends the 
cascading  use  of  wood  as  the  downstream  by-products  are  being  consumed  for  both 
material  and  energy  purposes.  Furthermore,  the  cascading  use  of  wood  is  enhanced 
through displacement of firewood with large scale conversion units that use industrial 
by-products  as  feedstock.  As  the  consumption  of  firewood  is  decreased  and  the 
bioenergy  sector  increases  it  consumption  of  downstream  wood  flows,  the  use  of 
wood-based  raw  material  coming  directly  from  the  forest  is  substituted  by  industrial 
by-products,  a  resource  from  the  downstream  wood  flow  that  is  derived  from 
processed  roundwood.  Also,  the  increase  in  the  cascade  factor  is  to  a  certain  extent 
driven  by  the  increasing  reliance  of  the  bioenergy  sector  on  feedstocks  such  as  SRC 
and  imported  pellets,  which  are  not  accounted  for  in  the  estimate  of  the  cascade 
factor,  but  that  frees  up  resources  of  other  lignocellulosic  feedstocks  to  be  used  for 
material purposes.  

January 2016  86 

 
 
  
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

After 2030, the cascade factor slightly decreases from 1.58 as of 2030, to 1.56 as of 
2050.  However,  this  development  is  derived  from  a  higher  increase  in  the 
consumption  of  roundwood  than  the  increase  in  consumption  of  woody  biomass  for 
material and energy. That is, from 2030 onwards the increase in multiple use of 
wood  through  the  various  value  chains  is  lower  than  the  increase  in 
roundwood  consumption.  As  the  bioenergy  sector  demand  for  solid  lignocellulosic 
feedstocks  increases  from  2030  onwards,  a  large  amount  of  roundwood  is  directly 
used by the bioenergy sector, decreasing the cascade factor (Figure 15).  

In  the  following,  we  examine  two  separate  approaches  to  increase  cascading. 
First,  by  modelling  an  increase  in  the  amount  of  recovered  wood  available  and 
analysing the possible effects on the virgin use of wood. The second approach imposes 
a  tax  on  the  energy  use  of  virgin  wood,  again  examining  the  effects  on  the  material 
and energy use of wood.  

Increased recovery of wood for material production 

In this analysis, we model the effects of increased cascading in the system through an 
increase  in  the  amount  of  recovered  wood  as  a  feedstock  for  material  purposes.  The 
increase  in  recycling  is  evaluated  in  terms  of  solid  wood  (for  example  recovered 
sawnwood  class  A1  and  A2)  to  serve  as  feedstock  for  particle  board  production.  The 
amount  of  recovered  wood  was  increased  by  20%,  40%,  100%  and  200%  by  year 
2050,  as  a  linear  increase  from  the  amount  in  2010  (10%,  20%,  50%  and  100%  in 
2030). The results  show that recovered wood replaces first and foremost  the 
use  of  industrial  by-products  for  material  production.  In  turn,  the  displaced 
industrial  by-products  are  to  a  large  extent  used  for  energy  production  and 
decrease  the  use  of  SRC,  wood  pellets,  and  roundwood  for  energy  purposes 
(Figure 41). Even a 200% increase by 2050 does not lead to notable decreases in the 
forest  harvest  level.    This  is  a  logical  result,  as  the  main  material  use  for  recovered 
wood  is  in  particleboard  production  (here,  paper  production  and,  consequently, 
recovered  paper  are  not  included  in  the  analysis).  For  particleboard  production,  a 
certain amount of virgin wood is required alongside the recovered wood. This explains 
the small increase in the material use of pulplogs when the amount of recovered wood 
is increased by 20% or more. 

Most of the industrial residues replaced by recovered wood in material production will 
be  instead  used  for  energy  production.  This,  in  turn  leads  into  a  decrease  in  the 
energy  use  of  virgin  raw  materials:  in  2030,  the  main  reduction  is  in  imported  wood 
pellets  and  roundwood  to  energy  when  recovered  wood  is  increased  in  smaller 
amounts,  and  when  the  amount  of  recovered  wood  increases  by  50%  or  100%, 
further  reduction  is  seen  in  SRC.  On  the  other  hand,  in  2050,  increased  use  of 
industrial  residues  leads  especially  to  a  decrease  in  the  pellet  imports,  while  the 
effects on roundwood used for energy and SRC are only minor. There is also no effect 
on domestic forest harvest levels.  

To  sum  up,  it  is  seen  that  increased  amounts  of  recovered  wood  for  material 
production lead to a higher availability of industrial by-products for energy production. 
In  the  short  term,  the  small  amount  (5  Mm3  in  ER  in  2030)  of  roundwood  used  for 
energy  can  indirectly  be  replaced  by  industrial  by-products  through  increasing  the 
availability of recovered wood for material production. In  other words,  increasing the 
amount of recovered wood available for material production is seen to lower the use of 
roundwood for energy purposes. In the long term (2050), an increased availability of 
recovered  wood  for  material  production  leads  to  a  larger  decrease  in  the  import  of 
wood  pellet  than  in  the  short  term  (2030).  That  is,  increased  use  of  recovered 
wood  for  material  production  not  only  reduces  the  use  of  roundwood  for 

January 2016  87 

 
 
  
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

energy  purposes  within  EU,  but  also  reduces  the  net-import  of  wood  pellets 
to EU from the rest of the world.  

Figure  41.  Effect  of  increasing  the  amount  of  recovered  wood  used  for  material 
production on the use of woody biomass for material and energy in 2030. 

Displacement in material use of wood  
2030 

Consequences on energy use of wood, 
2030 

)
3

m
M

(
e
m
u
o
v
n

l

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

REDU Recycl.
+10%

Recycl.
+20%

Recycl.
+50%

Recycl.
+100%

Feedstock shares in material 
production, 2030 

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

REDU Recycl.
+10%

Recycl.
+20%

Recycl.
+50%

Recycl.
+100%

Feedstock shares in energy 
production, 2030 

)
3

m
M

(
e
m
u
o
v
n

l

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

REDU

Recycl.
+10%

Recycl.
+20%

Recycl.
+50%

Recycl.
+100%

REDU

Recycl.
+10%

Recycl.
+20%

Recycl.
+50%

Recycl.
+100%

January 2016  88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  42.  Effect  of  increasing  the  amount  of  recovered  wood  used  for  material 
production  on  the  use  of  woody  biomass  for  material  and  energy  in  2050.  Note  that 
the scale in this figure is not the same as for year 2030 above 

Displacement in material use of wood 
2050 

Consequences on energy use of wood, 
2050 

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

)
3

m
M

(
e
m
u
o
v
n

l

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

)
3

m
M

(
e
m
u
o
v
n

l

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

REDU Recycl.
+20%

Recycl.
+40%

Recycl.
+100%

Recycl.
+200%

REDU Recycl.
+20%

Recycl.
+40%

Recycl.
+100%

Recycl.
+200%

Feedstock shares in material 
production, 2050 

Feedstock shares in energy 
production, 2050 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

REDU

Recycl.
+20%

Recycl.
+40%

Recycl.
+100%

Recycl.
+200%

REDU

Recycl.
+20%

Recycl.
+40%

Recycl.
+100%

Recycl.
+200%

Impacts of a tax imposed on the use of virgin wood for energy 

In  this  analysis,  we  focus  on  policies  aiming  to  encourage  cascading  use  of  wood 
through discouraging the energy use of wood biomass that could be used for material 
purposes. There are a number of different policy options for improving cascade use of 
wood.  For  this  particular  analysis,  we  focus  on  one  hypothetical  policy  that  is 

January 2016  89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

compatible with the model framework applied within the project. We examine this by 
imposing a tax on the energy use of wood raw material for those feedstocks that could 
be  used  for  material:  sawlogs  and  pulplogs,  sawdust,  and  wood  chips.  The  tax  is 
imposed in the model as a price increase of +1$, +5$, +10$, +20$, +30$, +40$ and 
+50$  per  m3  for  each  of  these  feedstocks  if  they  are  used  for  bioenergy  purposes. 
These prices can be put in relation when looking at the price of industrial by-products, 
which range between 20 to 35 euros per m3 as of 2010 (see Task 1 report). Here, the 
tax was imposed for each period starting from 2020 and the total bioenergy demand is 
always  kept  constant  (i.e.  bioenergy  demand  is  not  price  sensitive).  The  analysis  is 
made  based  on  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  (REDU).  There  is  no  tax  on  the 
energy use of SRC or imported pellets as these are not considered to be applicable for 
material production.  

The  results  show  that  imposing  the  hypothetical  tax  decreases  the  energy 
use  of  roundwood  and  industrial  by-products  already  at  low  levels  of  tax 
(Figure  43),  thereby  making  more  industrial  by-products  available  for 
material production and slightly reducing the total harvest of stemwood. It is 
noted that as of 2030, no roundwood would be directly used for energy at tax levels of 
5$ or higher, and the use of industrial by-products for energy decreases gradually as 
the tax is increased.  However, it is important to note that there are trade-offs in the 
implementation  of  the  hypothetical  tax.  For  the  bioenergy  sector,  the  tax  leads  to  a 
substitution  of  industrial  by-products  and  roundwood  by  SRC  and  pellet  imports.  In 
other  words,  the  decreasing  use  of  industrial  by-products  and  roundwood  for 
bioenergy  purposes  leads  to  an  increasing  amount  of  land  dedicated  to  the 
production  of  short  rotation  coppices  within  the  EU28  and  an  increased 
import of pellets from RoW. In 2050, SRC is the largest feedstock for energy from 
wood  biomass  in  ER,  and  while  the  tax  on  direct  energy  use  increases  it  further,  we 
see  an  even  stronger  increase  in  the  volume  of  imported  pellets  at  high  tax  levels. 
Also,  the  total  demand  for  bioenergy  is  so  high  in  2050  that  a  notable  amount  of 
roundwood will still be used for direct bioenergy even for taxes as high as 50$ per m3. 

The increased availability of wood from roundwood and industrial by-products is partly 
used  in  the  material  sector,  reducing  the  roundwood  consumption  for  material 
purposes (Figure 43). Here, we see very similar development in both 2030 and 2050, 
reflecting  the  already  established  methods  for  cascading  use  present  in  the  forest 
industry:  it  is  relatively  easy  to  utilize  the  now  more  competitive  roundwood  and 
industrial  by-products  for  material  production  quickly  after  the  tax  imposition.  All  in 
all, however, the direct energy use tax has only a small impact on material production, 
affecting  mainly  the  feedstock  composition  on  the  energy  side.  Moreover,  at  high 
taxation levels (in particular at +20$ per m3 and above) there is some extra volume of 
industrial  by-products  that  will  not  be  used  for  energy  on  high  tax  levels,  but  will 
neither be used  for material production. This behaviour is due to insufficient demand 
for  sawdust  and  wood  chips in  the  material  sector  as  well  as  the need  of  fresh  wood 
fibres  for  the  production  of  some  particular  end  use  products.  This  also  leads  into  a 
decrease  in  the  sawnwood  production  (and  sawnwood  exports)  on  high  tax  levels 
(Figure  44).  Because  of  the  price  elastic  wood  supply  assumed  in  the  model,  even  a 
high tax on the direct energy use of wood will not have a large effect on the price of 
wood,  and  thus  has  only  a  small  increasing  effect  on  the  amount  of  wood  materials 
produced.  

January 2016  90 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  43.  The  change  in  the  use  of  wood  biomass  for  material  and  energy  when 
introducing a tax on the direct energy use of wood. 

Wood for energy use, 2030 

Wood for material use, 2030 

30

20

10

0

-10

30

20

10

0

-10

)
3

m
M

(
R
E
o
t
d
e
r
a
p
m
o
c
e
m
u
o
v
n

l

i

)
3

m
M

(
R
E
o
t
d
e
r
a
p
m
o
c
e
m
u
o
v
n

l

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

-20

-30

e
g
n
a
h
C

-20

-30

ER +1$ +5$ +10$ +20$ +30$ +40$ +50$

ER +1$ +5$ +10$ +20$ +30$ +40$ +50$

Wood for energy use, 2050 

Wood for material use, 2050 

)
3

m
M

(
R
E
o
t
d
e
r
a
p
m
o
c
e
m
u
o
v
n

l

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

90

70

50

30

10

-10

-30

-50

-70

-90

)
3

m
M

(
R
E
o
t
d
e
r
a
p
m
o
c
e
m
u
o
v
n

l

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

90

70

50

30

10

-10

-30

-50

-70

-90

ER +1$ +5$ +10$ +20$ +30$ +40$ +50$

ER +1$ +5$ +10$ +20$ +30$ +40$ +50$

January 2016  91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure  44.  Amount  of  various  material  products  produced  under  different  tax  levels 
for direct energy use of wood in 2050. 

2050 

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

)
E
W
R
f
o
3

m
0
0
0
1
n
i
(
d
e
c
u
d
o
r
p
e
m
u
o
V

l

ER

+1$

+5$

+10$

+20$

+30$

+40$

+50$

Chemical pulp

Mechanical pulp

Plywood

Fiberboard

Sawnwood

The tax aiming to encourage the cascading use of wood was also analysed in terms of 
its  impact  on  the  cascade  factor  as  earlier  estimated  and  applied  to  quantify  the 
cascading use of wood. Overall, the tax on the energy use of wood raw material 
is  noted  to  only  have  a  marginal  impact  on  the  cascade  factor.  The  change  in 
the  cascade  factor  between  the  years  is  larger  than  that  of  the  change  in  the 
cascading  factor  imposed  by  the  tax.  As  of  2030,  the  tax  marginally  increases  the 
cascade  factor  until  the  tax  reached  a  level  of  +20  $  per  m3.  This  increase  in  the 
cascade factor is related to the fact that no roundwood is being used for energy and a 
displacement  of  forest-based  by-products  from  the  bioenergy  sector  to  the  material 
sector,  thereby  slightly  decreasing  the  roundwood  consumption.  However,  at  a  tax 
level of +30 $ per m3 and higher, it is noted that the tax decrease the cascade factor. 
While  the  tax  continues  to  decrease  the  use  of  wood  raw  material  within  the  energy 
sector, the increase in material consumption of wood is less than that of the decrease 
in the use of wood within the bioenergy sector (Figure 43). The reason for the smaller 
decrease in material production lies in the production processes of  some forest-based 
industries  (such  as  sawmills  and  plywood  industries),  who  cannot  replace  the  use  of 
stemwood by increasing their use of by-products. Furthermore, also other wood-based 
industries can substitute stemwood by industrial by-products only to a certain extent.  

January 2016  92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

References   

Beringer TIM, Lucht W, Schaphoff S. Bioenergy production potential of global biomass 

plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. GCB Bioenergy 
(2011) 3:299-312. 

Buongiorno J, Zhu S, Zhang D, Turner J, Tomberlin D. The global forest products 

model: structure, estimation, and applications. (2003): Academic Press. 

Carus, M. Cascading concepts and proposal for a new definition. Presentation on the 
second workshop “Cascading use of biomass – from theory to practice". 
Brussels, 01. (2014) 

CIESIN. 2002. Last of the Wild Project, Version 1 (LWP-1): Global Human Footprint. 

Dataset (Geographic).Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Center for 
International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Palisades, NY. 

Commission E. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low 

carbon economy in 2050. (2011). 

Commission E. EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions: Trends to 2050, Reference 

Scenario 2013. (2013). 

Commission E. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: Accompanying the Communication A policy 

framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030. (2014). 

Cramer W, et al. Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity 

(NPP): overview and key results. Global change biology (1999) 5:1-15  
EFSOS II. (2011). The European Forest Sector Outlook Study II - 2010-2030. United 

Nations, Geneva. 107 p.  

Havlík P, et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel 

targets. Energy Policy (2011) 39:5690-5702. 

Havlík P, et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2014) 111:3709-3714. 
Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, de Vries B, Turkenburg W. Exploration of regional and global 

cost–supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned 
cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass and 
Bioenergy (2009) 33:26-43. 

Indufor. (2013). A11-04451 Study on the Wood Raw Material Supply and Demand for 

the EU Wood-processing Industries. Report for the European Commission (ID 
31848). 339 p.  

Kindermann GE, McCallum I, Fritz S, Obersteiner M. A global forest growing stock, 

biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fennica (2008) 42:387. 

Kindermann GE, Obersteiner M, Rametsteiner E, McCallum I. Predicting the 

deforestation-trend under different carbon-prices. Carbon Balance and 
management (2006) 1:15. 

Kindermann GE, et al. Potential stocks and increments of woody biomass in the 

European Union under different management and climate scenarios. Carbon 
Balance and management (2013) 8. 

Labat, A., Kitous, A., Perry, M., Saveyn, B., Vandyck, T., and Vrontisi, Z. (2015). 

GECO2015. Global Energy and Climate Outlook. Road to Paris. JRC Scientific 
and Policy Reports, EUR 27239 EN 

Mantau, U. et al. (2010). EUwood - Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU 

forests. Final report. Hamburg/Germany, June 2010. 160 p. 

Reisinger A, Havlik P, Riahi K, van Vliet O, Obersteiner M, Herrero M. Implications of 
alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions 
from agriculture. Climatic Change (2013) 117:677-690. 

Schipfer F, Kranzl L. Scenarios for selected advanced bio materials. Energy Economics 
Group, Vienna University of Technology. Technical report. (2015, forthcoming). 

Seale JL, Regmi A, Bernstein J. International evidence on food consumption patterns. 

(2003): Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. 

January 2016  93 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC. A bottom-up assessment 

and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and 
combustion science (2007) 33:56-106. 

Takayama T, Judge GG. Spatial and temporal price and allocation models.  (1971). 
Van Vuuren DP, Bellevrat E, Kitous A, Isaac M. Bio-Energy Use and Low Stabilization 

Scenarios. Energy Journal (2010) 31. 

Verkerk, P. J., Levers, C., Kuemmerle, T., Lindner, M., Valbuena, R., Verburg, P. H., & 
Zudin, S. (2015). Mapping wood production in European forests. Forest Ecology 
and Management, 357, 228-238. 

January 2016  94 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Annex I – Bioenergy demand projections   
The  following  is  a  description  of  how  the  exogenously  defined  bioenergy  demand 
projections  as  of  POLES  and  PRIMES  are  treated  within  the  GLOBIOM  modelling 
framework in this project. 

Within this project, bioenergy demand projections as of PRIMES and POLES are taken 
as  input  to  the  GLOBIOM  modelling  framework.  That  is,  bioenergy  demand  is 
exogenously defined and not evaluated within the various modelling frameworks that 
are  being  used.  The  approach  taken  for  this  particular  study  in  terms  of  how  the 
bioenergy demands are being  treated within GLOBIOM is modified from the approach 
taken in the 2014 IA report for the EU. For the EU, bioenergy demand as estimated by 
PRIMES is being applied, for the rest of the world (RoW), demand estimated by POLES 
is applied. The bioenergy demand is  expressed within the GLOBIOM  model as a hard 
constraint that always has to be fulfilled. That is, bioenergy demand has to be fulfilled 
even  if  it  reduced  the  availability  of  biomass  resources  for  other  purposes.  Total 
bioenergy demand is as such not price sensitive, however, the selection of feedstocks 
to  be  used  for  energy  production  depends  on  the  price  of  the  various  feedstocks 
available and technological constraints. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  both  PRIMES  and  POLES  projections  of  bioenergy 
production only cover part of the total wood demand projection globally and in Europe. 
The  GLOBIOM  model  also  considers  demand  for  the  production  of  other  wood 
products.  The  general  aspects  of  the  bioenergy  demand  and  how  these  impact  the 
demand  of  other  sources  of  wood  will  first  be  described.  Thereafter,  the  specifics  of 
the implementation of the POLES and PRIMES bioenergy demands will be discussed.  

The  energy  wood  production  in  GLOBIOM  is  initially  set  to  match  the  amounts  as 
projected by POLES and PRIMES. This is then implemented as a minimum constraint, 
meaning that a country can produce more but not less wood for energy purposes than 
prescribed by the POLES and PRIMES biomass projections. This setup assures that the 
projected  amount  of  biomass  for  energy  is  met,  and  also  allows  for  flexibility  to 
produce  more  and  sell  on  the  international  market  if  profitable.  Other  (non-energy) 
wood  products  are  left  competing  for  the  remaining  wood  resources.  An  increase  in 
biomass demand as prescribed by POLES/PRIMES can thus be met both by increasing 
domestic production as well as through international trade of biomass,  again allowing 
also for more harvests in countries with competitive production potentials. It should be 
noted that an increase in wood harvest for energy purposes does not necessarily lead 
into increased total harvests. A country might produce more wood for energy from its 
the  amount  prescribed  by 
(limited)  domestic 
POLES/PRIMES  biomass,  while  reducing  other  uses  of  the  harvested  wood.  The  final 
level  of  forest  harvests  depends  on  the  domestic  demand  for  wood  for  energy  and 
material, as well as on wood demand in other countries and the countries’ wood price 
elasticity. 

resources,  matching 

forest 

POLES bioenergy demand within GLOBIOM 
For the rest of the world, when it comes to regional bioenergy projections from POLES, 
demand is provided in terms of four categories of bioenergy products:  

  Regional biomass demand in heat and power (BIOINEL) 
  Direct biomass use i.e. for cooking (BIOINBIOD) 
  First generation liquid transport fuel use (BFP1)  
  Second generation liquid transport fuel use (BFP2) 

January 2016  95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Each of these demand categories are implemented in GLOBIOM as target demands or, 
in  other  words,  as  minimum  demand  constraints.  This  means  that  a  country  can 
produce  more  but  not  less  of  a  category  of  bioenergy  product  than  prescribed  by 
POLES. This is done to assure that that the production of biomass projected by POLES 
is always achieved while still allowing for flexibility to produce more if demanded, e.g. 
through the use of by-products. 

Biomass for the different types of bioenergy products can be sourced from agricultural 
and  (existing)  forestry  activities  but  also  from  newly  planted  short  rotation  tree 
plantations  (see  Table  8  for  an  overview  of  the  mapping).  First  generation  biofuels 
include  ethanol  made  from  sugarcane,  corn  and  wheat,  and  biodiesel  made  from 
rapeseed,  palm  oil  and  soybeans.  Biomass  for  second  generation  biofuels  is  either 
sourced from existing forests/wood processing or from short rotation tree plantations. 
Havlík  et  al  (2011)  define  different  scenarios  for  the  sourcing  of  second  generation 
biofuels.  They  also  conducted  an  analysis  to  establish  the  scale  of  land  available  for 
SRC.  Summarised  in  a  few  words,  they  arrive  at  available  area  by  excluding  areas 
unsuitable  for  their  level  of  aridity,  temperatures,  elevation  and  population  density 
from  total  arable  land  area  (grazing  land,  cropland,  ‘other  natural  vegetation’). 
Biomass from existing forest activities, short rotation tree plantations, and industrial-
by  products  (e.g.  sawdust,  sawchips,  bark  and  black  liquor)  can  also  be  applied  as 
feedstock  to  fulfil  regional  biomass  demand  for  heat  and  power  (BIOINEL).  This 
implies  that  substitution  may  occur  between  the  use  of  wood  from  forest  activates, 
plantations,  and  the  by-products.  The  share  between  the  uses  of  these  sources  of 
feedstock is not pre-defined and it is the GLOBIOM model that selects this use.  

Table 8: Mapping of the POLES bioenergy categories 
GLOBIOM feedstocks 
  Wood from forest activites (stem wood and forest 

POLES 
  BIOINEL 

residues) 

  Short rotation tree plantations 
  Woody industrial by-products (sawdust, sawchips, 

bark, and black liquor) 

  Wood from forest activities (stem wood and forest 

  BIOINBIOD 

residues) 

  Ethanol made from sugarcane, corn and wheat 
  Biodiesel made from rapeseed, palm oil and 

  BFP1 

soybeans 

  Wood from forest activities (stemwood and forest 

  BFP2 

residues) 

  Short rotation tree plantations 
  Woody industrial by-products (sawdust, sawchips, 

bark, and black liquor) 

PRIMES bioenergy demand within GLOBIOM 
For EU, PRIMES projection of bioenergy production is taken into account. The PRIMES 
projection  of  bioenergy  production  is  directly  specified  in  terms  of  feedstock  being 
used  for  bioenergy  production.  In  other  words,  the  PRIMES  demand  projection  is 
specified in terms of the amount of domestic biomass sources that will be directly used 
as  feedstocks  for  bioenergy  production.  An  overview  of  PRIMES  estimated  bioenergy 
demand  as  of  2005  and  2030  for  the  reference  and  GHG40/EE  scenarios  as  of  the 
2014 IA is provided in Table 9. 

January 2016  96 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Table 9: Biomass demand for energy purposes as of the 2014 IA 

Domestic production biomass 
feedstock (Mtoe) 

2005 

2030 

Ref 

GHG40/ EE 

87 

194 

191 

of which: forestry  
of which: crops 
of which: agricultural residues 
of which: waste 
of which: other (i.e. black liquor) 

33 
4 
12 
28 
9 

48 
65 
16 
47 
17 

48 
59 
16 
47 
21 

Source: European Commission. Impact Assessment: Accompanying the Communication A policy 
framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030. (2014). 

For  some  of  the  biomass  categories  as  specified  in  Table  9,  the  PRIMES  bioenergy 
demand scenarios is further detailed specifically in terms of the feedstock to be used. 
The split for the various categories as provided by PRIMES is as follows: 

  Forestry: 

o  Stem wood 
o  Harvesting residues  

  Crops: 

o  Wheat 
o  Sugar Beet 
o  Sunflower / rapeseed 
o  Perennial lignocellulosic crops (such as miscanthus and switch grass) 
o  Short rotation coppices (SRC, such as willows and poplars) 

  Waste:  

o  Solid  
o  Gas 
o  Oil fats 

If  the  PRIMES  bioenergy  demand  scenarios  were  to  be  directly  applied  within  the 
GLOBIOM  framework,  a  minimum  demand  constraint  should  be  associated  with  each 
individual feedstock, implying that there would be no competition between the various 
feedstocks.  This  is  the  approach  that  was  taken  for  the  2014  IA  report  and  an 
overview  of the mapping is provided in  Table 10. An important distinguishing feature 
of  the  PRIMES  bioenergy  demands  projections  in  comparison  to  that  of  the  POLES 
bioenergy  demands,  is  that  for  the  PRIMES  projections  no  competition  between 
feedstocks is allowed for. PRIMES directly prescribe the share of biomass feedstocks to 
be acquired by the bioenergy sector. 

January 2016  97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Table 10: Mapping of the PRIMES bioenergy categories as of the 2014 IA report 
GLOBIOM feedstocks 
  Stem wood from forest activites 

PRIMES 
  Stem wood from forest activities 

  Wheat 
  Sugar Beet 
  Sunflower  
  Rapeseed 
  Perennial lignocellulosic crops 
  Short rotation tree plantations 

  Wheat 
  Sugar Beet 
  Sunfloweer / rapeseed 

  Perennial lignocellulosic crops 
  SRC  

Within  the  framework  of  this  project,  the  description  of  the  forest-based  industries 
within the GLOBIOM model has been further extended, allowing the PRIMES categories 
to  be  expressed  with  further  details.  Furthermore,  the  PRIMES  bioenergy  demand 
scenarios  have  been  modified  to  enable  the  assessment  of  the  environmental 
implications of the use of feedstock for energy production. For this aim, the demand of 
a  number  of  biomass  feedstocks  was  aggregated  to  a  single  demand  constraint, 
implying that the feedstocks are in competition to fulfil the demand and that the exact 
split between the sources is no longer predefined (see overview in  Table 11). Perfect 
substitution  is  assumed  between  the  various  biomass  feedstocks  that  have  been 
aggregated, but each biomass category is associated with an individual heating value 
for the conversion.  

The  competition  between  feedstock  for  material  and  energy  uses  does  not  affect  the 
total  bioenergy  production  level  as  it  is  pre-set  according  to  the  total  use  of  the 
biomass  feedstocks  categories.  The  total  bioenergy  production  level  as  estimated  by 
PRIMES is always produced. 

Table 11: Mapping of the PRIMES bioenergy categories applied for this study 
GLOBIOM feedstocks 
  Wood of industrial roundwood quality 

from forest activites 

  Short rotation plantations for energy 

use 

  Forest-based industrial by-products 
(sawdust, sawchips, and bark) 
  Residues from forest activities 
  Wheat 
  Sugar Beet 
  Sunflower  
  Rapeseed 
  Perennial lignocellulosic crops 

PRIMES 
  Stem wood from forest activities 
  SRC 
  Solid waste portion corresponding 
to forest-based industrial by-
products 

  Residues from forest activities 
  Wheat 
  Sugar Beet 
  Sunfloweer / rapeseed 

  Perennial lignocellulosic crops 

January 2016  98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Annex II – Detailed model description   

GLOBIOM model description   

What is GLOBIOM? 
The Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM)31 (Havlík et al., 2014) is a global 
recursive  dynamic  partial  equilibrium  model  of  the  forest  and  agricultural  sectors, 
where  economic  optimization  is  based  on  the  spatial  equilibrium  modelling  approach 
(Takayama and Judge, 1971). The model is based on a bottom-up approach where the 
supply  side  of  the  model  is  built-up  from  the  bottom  (land  cover,  land  use, 
management systems) to the top (production/markets) (see Figure 45 for an overview 
of  the  model  framework).  The  agricultural  and  forest  productivity  is  modeled  at  the 
level of gridcells of 5 x 5 to 30 x 30 minutes of arc32, using biophysical models, while 
the demand and international trade occur at regional level (30 to 53 regions covering 
the  world,  depending  on  the  model  version  and  research  question).  Besides  primary 
products,  the  model  has  several  final  and  by-products,  for  which  the  processing 
activities are defined.  

The  model  computes  market  equilibrium  for  agricultural  and  forest  products  by 
allocating land use among production activities to maximize the sum of producer and 
consumer surplus, subject to resource, technological and policy constraints. The level 
of production in a given area is determined by the agricultural or forestry productivity 
in that area (dependent on suitability and management), by market prices (reflecting 
the level of demand), and by the conditions and cost associated to conversion of the 
land,  to  expansion  of  the  production  and,  when  relevant,  to  international  market 
access.  Trade  is  modelled  following  the  spatial  equilibrium  approach,  which  means 
that the trade flows are balanced out between different specific geographical regions. 
Trade  is  furthermore  based  purely  on  cost  competitiveness  as  goods  are  assumed  to 
be homogenous. This allows tracing of bilateral trade flows between individual regions. 

By including not only the bioenergy sector but also forestry, cropland and grazing land 
management,  and  livestock  management,  the  model  allows  for  a  full  account  of  all 
agriculture  and  forestry  GHG  sources.  GLOBIOM  accounts  for  ten  sources  of  GHG 
emissions, including crop cultivation N2O emissions from fertilizer use, CH4 from  rice 
cultivation,  livestock  CH4  emissions,  CH4  and  N2O  emissions  from  manure 
management, N2O from manure applied on pasture, above and below ground biomass 
CO2  emissions  from  biomass  removal  after  converting  forest  and  natural  land  to 
cropland,  CO2  emissions  from  soil  carbon  included  cultivated  organic  soil  (drained 
peatland, at country level). These emissions inventories are based on IPCC accounting 
guidelines. 

31 See also: www.iiasa.ac.at./GLOBIOM 
32 The supply-side resolution is based on the concept of Simulation Units, which are aggregates of 5 to 30 
arc-minute pixels belonging to the same country, altitude, slope, and soil class (Skalsky et al., 2008).  

January 2016  99 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Figure 45. Illustration of the GLOBIOM model. 

January 2016  100 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Representation of land use change 

The model includes six land cover types: cropland, grassland, other natural vegetation 
land,  used  forests,  unused  forests,  and  plantations33.  Economic  activities  are 
associated with the first four land cover types.  Depending on the relative profitability 
of  primary,  by-,  and  final  products  production  activities,  the  model  can  switch  from 
one  land  cover  type  to  another.  Land  conversion  over  the  simulation  period  is 
endogenously  determined  for  each  gridcell  within  the  available  land  resources.  Such 
conversion  implies  a  conversion  cost  –  increasing  with  the  area  of  land  converted  - 
that  is  taken  into  account  in  the  producer  optimization  behavior.  Land  conversion 
possibilities  are  further  restricted  through  biophysical  land  suitability  and  production 
potentials, and through a matrix of potential land cover transitions (see Figure 46).  

Figure 46. Land cover representation in GLOBIOM and the matrix of endogenous land 
cover change possibilities 

Land use change emissions 

Land use change emissions are computed based on the difference between initial and 
final  land  cover  equilibrium  carbon  stock.  For  forest,  above  and  below-ground  living 
biomass  carbon  data  are  sourced  from  G4M  which  supplies  geographically  explicit 
allocation of the carbon stocks. The carbon stocks are consistent with the 2010 Forest 

33 The term "used forests" refers to all forest areas where harvesting operations take place, while "unused 
forests" refers to undisturbed or primary forests. There are other three land cover types represented in 
the model to cover the total land area: other agricultural land, wetlands, and not relevant (bare areas, 
water bodies, snow and ice, and artificial surfaces). These three categories are currently kept constant 
at their initial level. 

January 2016  101 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Assessment  Report  (FRA  2010),  providing  emission  factors  for  deforestation  in  line 
with that of FAOSTAT. Carbon stock from grazing land and other natural vegetation is 
also taken into account using the above and below ground carbon from the biomass as 
of  Ruesch  et  al.  (2008).  When  forest  or  natural  vegetation  is  converted  into 
agricultural  use,  the  GLOBIOM  approach  consider  that  all  below  and  above  ground 
biomass is released in the atmosphere.  

The use of detailed and reliable statistics and maps 

All  processes  and  management  options  are  represented  at  a  high  level  of  regional 
detail  and  built  on  trustworthy  databases.  GLOBIOM  is  based  on  EU  data  regarding 
area,  yields,  production  etc.  at  NUTS  2  level.  The  market  balances  calculated  for  the 
53  regions  worldwide  rely  on  EUROSTAT  accounts  and  on  FAOSTAT  for  outside  EU. 
Land cover is dealt with in a geographically explicit way. The land cover description for 
the  EU28  is  based  on  CORINE/PELCOM  cover  maps,  which  ensure  a  great  level  of 
detail in land cover. The land cover for the rest of the World is based on  Global Land 
Cover 2000 (GLC 2000).  

Biomass  use  for  large-scale  energy  production  is  usually  based  on  the  POLES  or 
MESSAGE energy sector models (Havlík et al., 2011; Reisinger et al., 2013), but other 
estimates  can  also  be  utilized.  For  forests,  mean  annual  increments  and  growing 
stocks  for  GLOBIOM  are  obtained  from  G4M.  For  the  agricultural  sector,  GLOBIOM 
draws  on  results  from  the  crop  model  EPIC  (Environmental  Policy  Integrated  Climate 
Model)34,  which  provides  the  detailed  biophysical35  processes  of  water,  carbon  and 
nitrogen  cycling,  as  well  as  erosion  and  impacts  of  management  practices  on  these 
cycles.  GLOBIOM  therefore  incorporates  all  inputs  that  affect  yield  heterogeneity  and 
can also represent a different marginal yield for different crops in a same grid cell.  

Categories of biomass and biomass conversion are included in GLOBIOM 

GLOBIOM represents a number of conventional and advanced biofuels feedstocks: 
  27 different crops including 4 vegetable oil types36;  
  Co-products: 3 oilseed meal types, wheat and corn DDGS; 
  Perennials and short rotation plantations: Miscanthus, switchgrass, short rotation 

coppice; 

  Used forest: 4 types of stem wood, primary forestry residues from wood harvest;  
  Wood processing residues: bark, black liquor, sawdust, sawchips; 
  Recovered wood products;  
  Crop residues (e.g. straw). 

Various  energy  conversion  processes  are  modelled  in  GLOBIOM  and  implemented 
with specific technological costs, conversion efficiencies and co-products: 
  Wood (forestry): sawnwood, plywood, fiberboard, pulp and paper production, 

combustion, fermentation, gasification; 

34 See also: www.iiasa.ac.at/EPIC 
35 Biophysical means related to living (animals, plants) and non-living (light, temperature, water, soil etc.) 

factors in the environment which affect ecosystems 

36 Palm oil, rapeseed oil, soy oil and sunflower oil 

January 2016  102 

 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

  Lignocellulose (energy crop plantations): combustion, fermentation, gasification; 
  Conventional ethanol: corn, sugar cane, sugar beet and wheat ethanol processing; 
  Conventional biodiesel: rapeseed oil, soybean oil, soya oil and palm oil to FAME 

processing; 

  Oilseed crushing activities: rapeseed, soybeans, and sunflower crushing activities. 

This  allows  ethanol,  methanol,  biodiesel,  heat,  electricity  and  gas  to  be  distinguished 
and  traced  according  to  their  feedstocks.  Furthermore,  competition  for  biomass 
resources as considered is also taken into account between the various sectors in term 
of the demand for food, feed, timber, and energy. 

Agricultural production within GLOBIOM 

GLOBIOM  explicitly  covers  production  of  each  of  the  18  world  major  crops 
representing  more  than  70%  of  the  total  harvested  area  and  85%  of  the  vegetal 
calorie  supply  as  reported  by  FAOSTAT.  Each  crop  can  be  produced  under  different 
management  systems depending on their relative profitability: subsistence, low input 
rainfed,  high  input  rainfed,  and  high  input  irrigated,  when  water  resources  are 
available.  Crop  yields  are  generated  at  the  grid  cell  level  on  the  basis  of  soil,  slope, 
altitude  and  climate  information,  using  the  EPIC  model.  Within  each  management 
system, input structure is fixed following a Leontief production function. However, crop 
yields  can  change  in  reaction  to  external  socio-economic  drivers  through  switch  to 
another  management  system  or  reallocation  of  the  production  to  a  more  or  less 
productive  gridcell.  Besides  the  endogenous  mechanisms,  an  exogenous  component 
representing long-term technological change is also considered.  

Livestock sector within GLOBIOM 

The  GLOBIOM  model  also  incorporates  a  particularly  detailed  representation  of  the 
global  livestock  sector.  With  respect  to  animal  species,  distinction  is  made  between 
dairy  and  other  bovines,  dairy  and  other  sheep  and  goats,  laying  hens  and  broilers, 
and  pigs.  Livestock  production  activities  are  defined  in  several  alternative  production 
systems  adapted  from  Seré  and  Steinfeld  (1996):  for  ruminants,  grass  based  (arid, 
humid, 
temperate/ 
highlands), and other; for monogastrics, smallholders and industrial. For each species, 
production  system,  and  region,  a  set  of  input-output  parameters  is  calculated  based 
on the approach in Herrero et al. (2008). 

temperate/highlands),  mixed  crop-livestock  (arid,  humid, 

Feed rations in GLOBIOM are defined with a digestion model (RUMINANT, see  (Havlík 
et  al.,  2014))  consisting  of  grass,  stovers,  feed  crops  aggregates,  and  other 
feedstuffs.  Outputs  include  four  meat  types,  milk,  and  eggs,  and  environmental 
factors  (manure  production,  N-excretion,  and  GHG  emissions).  The  initial  distribution 
of  the  production  systems  is  based  on  Robinson  et  al.  (2011).  Switches  between 
production  systems  allow  for  feedstuff  substitution  and  for  intensification  or 
extensification  of  livestock  production.  The  representation  of  the  grass  feed  intake  is 
an important  component  of  the  system  representation  as  grazing land  productivity is 
explicitly  represented  in  the  model.  Therefore,  the  model  can  represent  a  full 
interdependency between grazing land and livestock.  

January 2016  103 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Available supply of wood biomass and types of wood 

Total  forest  area  in  GLOBIOM  is  calibrated  according  to  FAO  Global  Forest  Resources 
Assessments  (FRA)  and  divided  into  used  and  unused  forest  utilizing  a  downscaling 
routine  based  on  human  activity  impact  on  the  forest  areas  (Kindermann  et  al., 
2008b). The available woody biomass  resources are provided by  G4M  for  each  forest 
area unit, and are presented by mean annual increments. Mean annual increments for 
forests  are  then  in  GLOBIOM  divided  into  commercial  roundwood,  non-commercial 
roundwood and harvest losses, thereby covering the main sources of  woody biomass 
supply.37 The amount of harvest losses is based on G4M estimates  while the share of 
non-commercial  species  is  based  on  FRA  (2010)  data  on  commercial  and  non-
commercial  growing  stocks.  In  addition  to  stemwood,  available  woody  biomass 
resources  also 
include  branches  and  stumps;  however,  environmental  and 
sustainability considerations constraint their availability and use for energy purposes. 

Available woody biomass resources from plantations 

Plantations are covered in GLOBIOM in the form of energy crop plantations, dedicated 
to  produce  wood  for  energy  purposes.  Plantation  yields  are  based  on  NPP  maps  and 
model’s  own  calculations,  as  described  in  Havlík  et  al.  (2011).  Plantation  area 
expansion  depends  on  the  land-use  change  constraints  and  economic  trade-offs 
between  alternative  land-use  options.  Land-use  change  constraints  define  which land 
areas are allowed to  be changed to plantations and how much of these areas can be 
changed  within  each  period  and  region  (so-called  inertia  conditions).  Permitted  land-
cover types for plantations expansion include cropland, grazing land, and other natural 
vegetation  areas,  and  they  exclude  forest  areas.  Within  each  land-cover  type  the 
plantation expansion is additionally limited by land suitability criteria based on aridity, 
temperature, elevation, population, and land-cover data, as described in Havlík et al. 
(2011).  

Plantation expansion to cropland and grazing land depends on the economic trade-off 
between food and wood production. Hence, the competition between alternative uses 
of  land  is  modeled  explicitly  instead  of  using  the  "food/fiber  first  principle,"  which 
gives  priority  to  food  and  fiber  production  and  allows  plantation  to  be  expanded  only 
to abandoned agricultural land and wasteland (Beringer et al., 2011; Hoogwijk et al., 
2009; Smeets et al., 2007; Van Vuuren et al., 2010).  

Woody biomass production costs 

Woody  biomass  production  costs  in  GLOBIOM  cover  both  harvest  and  transportation 
costs.  Harvest  costs  for  forests  are  based  on  the  G4M  model  by  the  use  of  spatially 
explicit constant unit costs that  include planting, logging, and chipping in the case of 
logging  residues.  Harvest  costs  also  vary  depending  on  geographical  considerations 
such as the region and the steepness of terrain. Transport costs are on the other hand 

37  Commercial  roundwood  is  stemwood  that  is  suitable  for  industrial  roundwood  (sawlogs,  pulplogs  and 
other  industrial  roundwood).  Harvest  losses  and  non-commercial  roundwood  are  stemwood  that  is 
unsuitable  for  industrial  roundwood.  The  difference  between  harvest  losses  and  non-commercial 
roundwood  is  that  the  former  has  unwanted  stemwood  sizes,  while  the  latter  has  unwanted  wood 
characteristics. 

January 2016  104 

 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

not  spatially  explicit  but  are  modeled  by  using  regional  level  constant  elasticity 
transport  cost  functions,  which  approximate  the  short  run  availability  of  woody 
biomass in each region. These transport costs functions are then shifted over time in 
response  to  the  changes  in  the  harvested  volumes  and  related  investments  in 
infrastructures.      

Woody biomass demand and forest industry technologies  

The forest sector is modeled to have seven final products (chemical pulp, mechanical 
pulp,  sawnwood,  plywood,  fiberboard,  other  industrial  roundwood,  and  household 
fuelwood).  Demand  for  the  various  final  products  is  modeled  using  regional  level 
constant  elasticity  demand  functions.  Forest  industrial  products  (chemical  pulp, 
mechanical  pulp,  sawnwood,  plywood  and  fiberboard)  are  produced  by  Leontief 
production technologies, which input-output coefficients are based on the engineering 
literature  (e.g.  FAO  2010).  By-products  of  these  technologies  (bark,  black  liquor, 
sawdust, and sawchips) can be used for energy production or as raw material for pulp 
and  fiberboard.  Production  capacities  for  the  base  year  2000  of  forest  industry  final 
products  are  based  on  production  quantities  from  FAOSTAT  (2012).  After  the  base 
year  the  capacities  evolve  according  to  investment  dynamics,  which  depend  on 
depreciation  rate  and  investment  costs.  This  implies  that  further  investments  can  be 
done  to  increase  production  capacities  or  allow  industries  to  reduce  their  production 
capacities  or  be  closed.  For  further  details  of  the  modelling  approach  of  the 
depreciation  rates,  capital  operating  costs,  and  investment  costs  as  applies,  we  refer 
to Lauri et at 2014.  

January 2016  105 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

G4M model description   

What is G4M? 
The  Global  Forest  Model  (G4M)38  is  applied  and  developed  by  IIASA  (Gusti,  2010a; 
Gusti,  2010b;  Gusti  et  al.,  2008;  Gusti  and  Kindermann,  2011;  Kindermann  et  al., 
2008a;  Kindermann  et  al.,  2006)  and  estimates  the  impact  of  forestry  activities 
(afforestation,  deforestation  and  forest  management)  on  biomass  and  carbon  stocks. 
By  comparing  the  income  of  used  forest  (difference  of  wood  price  and  harvesting 
costs, income by storing carbon in forests) with income by alternative land use on the 
same  place,  a  decision  of  afforestation  or  deforestation  is  made.  As  G4M  is  spatially 
explicit  (currently  on  a  0.5°  x  0.5°  resolution),  different  levels  of  deforestation 
pressure  at  the  forest  frontier  can  also  be  handled.  The  model  can  use  external 
information,  such  as  wood  prices  and  information  concerning  land  use  change 
estimates from GLOBIOM. As outputs, G4M produces estimates of forest area change, 
carbon  sequestration  and  emissions  in  forests,  impacts  of  carbon  incentives  (e.g. 
avoided deforestation) and supply of biomass for bioenergy and timber. 

Forest management option and impacts 

The available woody biomass resources is estimated by G4M for each forest area unit 
determined by mean annual increments, which are based on net primary productivity 
(NPP) maps from (Cramer et al., 1999a) and from different downscaling techniques as 
described  in  (Kindermann  et  al.,  2008b).  This  information  is  then  combined  with 
national  data  sources  (e.g.,  National  Forest  Inventories)  to  provide  further  and  more 
detailed information concerning biomass stocks and forest age structure.  

The  main  forest  management  options  considered  by  G4M  are  variation  of  thinning 
levels and choice of rotation length. The rotation length can be individually chosen but 
the  model  can  estimate  optimal  rotation  lengths  to  maximize  increment,  stocking 
biomass or harvestable biomass.  Increment is  determined by a potential Net Primary 
Productivity  (NPP)  map  (Cramer  et  al.,  1999b)  and  translated  into  net  annual 
increment  (NAI).  At  present  this  increment  map  is  static  and  does  not  change  over 
time. Age structure and stocking degree are used for adjusting NAI. 

The  model  uses  external  projections  of  wood  demand  per  country  (estimated  by 
GLOBIOM) to calculate total harvest iteratively. In G4M, the potential harvest amount 
per  country  is  estimated  by  choosing  a  set  of  rotation  lengths  that  maintain  current 
biomass stocks. If total harvests are less than the wood demand, the model changes 
management  grid  per  grid  (starting  from  the  most  productive  forest)  to  a  rotation 
length that optimizes forest increment and thus allows for more harvest. This mimics 
the typical observation that used forests (in many regions) are currently not managed 
optimally with respect to yield. The rotation length is updated for each five years’ time 
step. If harvest is still too small and there is unused forest available, the unused forest 
will be taken under  management.  If total harvests are greater than  the demand, the 

38 See also: www.iiasa.ac.at/G4M 

January 2016  106 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

model  will  change  management  to  maximize  biomass  rotation  length,  i.e.  to  manage 
forests  for  carbon  sequestration.  If  wood  demand  is  still  lower  than  the  harvest 
potential, used forest can be transferred into  unused forest. Thinning is applied to all 
used forests, and the stands are thinned to maintain a specified stocking degree. The 
default value is 1 where thinning mimics natural mortality along the self-thinning line. 
The  model  can  also  consider  the  use  of  harvest  residues  e.g.  for  bioenergy,  using  a 
cost curve algorithm. 

Carbon price and forest mitigation 

Introducing  a  carbon  price  incentive  means  that  the  forest  owner  is  paid  for  the 
carbon stored in forest living biomass if its amount is above a baseline, or pays a tax if 
the  amount  of  carbon  in  forest  living  biomass  is  below  the  baseline.  The  baseline  is 
estimated  assuming  forest  management  without  the  carbon  price  incentive.  The 
measures considered as mitigation measures in forest management in G4M are: 
  Reduction of deforestation area; 
  Increase of afforestation area; 
  Change of rotation length of existing used forests in different locations; 
  Change of the ratio of thinning versus final fellings; and 
  Change of harvest intensity (amount of biomass extracted in thinning and final 

felling activity. 

These  activities  are  not  adopted  independently  by  the  forest  owner.  The  model 
manages  land  dynamically  and  one  activity  affects  the  other.  The  model  then 
calculates the optimal combination of measures. The introduction of a CO2 price gives 
an  additional  value  to  the  forest  through  the  carbon  stored  and  accumulated  in  the 
forest. The increased value of forests in a regime with a CO2 price hence  changes the 
balance  of  land  use  change  through  the  net  present  value  (NPV)  generated  by  land 
use activities toward forestry. In general, it is therefore assumed that an introduction 
of  a  CO2  price  leads  to  a  decrease  of  deforestation  and  an  increase  of  afforestation. 
This  might  not  happen  at  the  same  intensity  though.  Moreover,  less  deforestation 
increases  land  scarcity  and  might  therefore  decrease  afforestation  relative  to  the 
baseline. 

Model applications 
Recently, the model was applied to project the future EU forest CO2 sink as affected by 
recent  bioenergy  policies  at  a  national  level.  The  results  were  used  by  several  EU 
member  states  to  construct  their  individual  Forest  Management  Reference  Levels 
(Böttcher, et al. 2011). 

January 2016  107 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

References and further reading 
Beringer TIM, Lucht W, Schaphoff S. Bioenergy production potential of global biomass 

plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. GCB Bioenergy 
(2011) 3:299-312. 

Buongiorno J, Zhu S, Zhang D, Turner J, Tomberlin D. The global forest products 

model: structure, estimation, and applications. (2003): Academic Press. 

Commission E. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low 

carbon economy in 2050. (2011). 

Cramer W, et al. Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity 
(NPP): overview and key results. Global change biology (1999a) 5:1-15  
Cramer W, et al. Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity 
(NPP): overview and key results. Global Change Biology (1999b) 5:1-15. 

Gusti M. An algorithm for simulation of forest management decisions in the global 

forest model. Artificial Intelligence (2010a) N4:45-49. 

Gusti M. Uncertainty of BAU emissions in LULUCF sector: Sensitivity analysis of the 

Global Forest Model. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on 
Uncertainty in Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2010b) Lviv Polytechnic National 
University, Lviv, Ukraine. 73-80. 

Gusti M, Havlik P, Obersteiner M. Technical Description of the IIASA Model Cluster 
(2008): The Eliasch Review; Office of Climate Change, UK [2008]. 

Gusti M, Kindermann G. An approach to modeling landuse change and forest 

management on a global scale. In: SIMULTECH-2011. Proceedings of 1st 
International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, 
Technologies and Applications--Kacprzyk J, Pina N, Filipe J, eds. (2011) 
Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands July 29 - 31 2011: SciTePress - Science and 
Technology Publications, Portugal. 180-185. 

Havlík P, et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel 

targets. Energy Policy (2011) 39:5690-5702. 

Havlík P, et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2014) 111:3709-3714. 
Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, de Vries B, Turkenburg W. Exploration of regional and global 

cost–supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned 
cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass and 
Bioenergy (2009) 33:26-43. 

Kindermann G, et al. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through 

avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 
United States of America (2008a) 105:10302-10307. 

Kindermann GE, McCallum I, Fritz S, Obersteiner M. A global forest growing stock, 

biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fennica (2008b) 
42:387. 

Kindermann GE, Obersteiner M, Rametsteiner E, McCallum I. Predicting the 

deforestation-trend under different carbon-prices. Carbon Balance and 
Management (2006) 1. 

Lauri, P., Havlík, P., Kindermann, G., Forsell, N., Böttcher, H., & Obersteiner, M. 

(2014). Woody biomass energy potential in 2050. Energy Policy, 66, 19-31. 

Reisinger A, Havlik P, Riahi K, van Vliet O, Obersteiner M, Herrero M. Implications of 
alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions 
from agriculture. Climatic Change (2013) 117:677-690. 

Seale JL, Regmi A, Bernstein J. International evidence on food consumption patterns. 

(2003): Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. 

Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC. A bottom-up assessment 

and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and 
combustion science (2007) 33:56-106. 

Takayama T, Judge GG. Spatial and temporal price and allocation models.  (1971). 

January 2016  108 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 3  

Van  Vuuren  DP,  Bellevrat  E,  Kitous  A,  Isaac  M.  Bio-Energy  Use  and  Low 
Stabilization Scenarios. Energy Journal (2010) 31. 

January 2016  109 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource 
Efficiency of Future EU Demand 
for Bioenergy 

Task 4: Resource efficiency implications of the 
scenarios 

mmmll 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Authors: 
Hannes Böttcher (Öko-Institut e.V.) 
Klaus Hennenberg (Öko-Insititut e.V.) 
Nicklas Forsell (IIASA) 

Consortium leader: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 

Consortium members: 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria 
Indufor Oy, Finland 
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), United Kingdom 
Öko-Institut e.V., Germany 
European Forest Institute (EFI), Finland 

May 2016 2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 3 
Introduction ...................................................................................... 5 
1. 
Methodology ..................................................................................... 5 
2. 
2.1. 
Definition of indicators and assessment of impacts (Stage 1) .................. 6 
2.1.1.  Definition of indicators ........................................................................ 6 

2.1.2. 

Assessment of impacts ....................................................................... 9 

2.2. 

2.2.1. 

2.2.2. 

Exploring  implications  of  environmental  constraints  for  biomass 
resource efficiency (Stage 2) ............................................................... 9 
Exploring implications of single constraints in the EU Emission reduction 

scenario (Dimension 1) ...................................................................10 

Exploring implications of combined constraints across scenarios (Dimension 
2) ................................................................................................10 

3. 
Results  of  Stage  1:  Assessment  of  environmental  impacts  in  Baseline  and 
policy scenarios ................................................................................................12 
3.1. 
Development of impacts observed in the Baseline scenario ....................12 
3.1.1.  Development of land use ...................................................................12 

3.1.2.  Development of land with high biodiversity value (HBV) ........................22 

3.1.3.  Development of GHG emissions from land use activities ........................25 

3.2. 
Comparison of impacts in Baseline and policy scenarios .........................32 
3.2.1.  Overview of impacts ..........................................................................32 

3.2.2. 

Impacts on land use ..........................................................................35 

3.2.3. 

Impacts on land with high biodiversity value ........................................37 

3.2.4. 

Impacts on GHG emissions from land use activities ...............................41 

3.2.5. 

Impacts on the EU Forest management sink .........................................47 

4. 
Results of Stage 2: Exploring implications of environmental constraints for 
biomass resource efficiency ...............................................................................51 
impacts 

Important  environmental 
implementation of specific constraints to reduce impacts .......................51 
Conversion of areas of High Biodiversity Value (HBV) ............................51 

in  Stage  1  and 

4.1.1. 

found 

4.1. 

the 

4.1.2. 

Area of unused forest converted to used forest .....................................51 

4.1.3. 

Conversion of other natural land .........................................................52 

4.2. 

4.2.1. 

Exploring  implications  of  single  constraints  for  biomass  resource 
efficiency in the EU Emission reduction scenario ...................................52 
Implications for production of biomass in EU ........................................52 

4.2.2. 

Implications for trade of biomass ........................................................53 

4.2.3. 

Implications for biomass use ..............................................................54 

4.2.4. 

Implications for land use in EU and the RoW ........................................56 

4.2.5. 

Implications for GHG emissions from the land use sector in EU and RoW .57 

4.3. 

Exploring  implications  of  combined  constraints  for  biomass  resource 
efficiency across scenarios .................................................................61 

May 2016 3 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

4.3.1. 

Implications for production of biomass in EU ........................................61 

4.3.2. 

Implications for trade of biomass ........................................................62 

4.3.3. 

Implications for biomass use ..............................................................64 

4.3.4. 

Implications for land use in EU and the RoW ........................................65 

4.3.5. 

Implications for GHG emissions from the land use sector in EU and RoW .67 

5. 
Summary and Conclusions .................................................................72 
Acronyms ........................................................................................................75 
Annex 1 ..........................................................................................................76 

May 2016 4 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

1.  Introduction 
The  purpose  of  this  report  is  to  document  methodology  and  results  of  Task  4  of  the 
project  “Study  on  Impacts  on  Resource  Efficiency  of  Future  EU  Demand  for 
Bioenergy”. The aim of Task 4 is to use the outcomes of Task 2 and Task 3 to assess 
the  impacts  of  the  production  of  biomass  for  energy  on  natural  resources  and  the 
global  environment.  The  assessment  covers  direct  and  indirect  impacts1  because  the 
applied  models  (GLOBIOM  and  G4M)  cover  the  entire  land  use  sector  and  the  whole 
globe. Thus, by comparing different scenarios with varying assumptions any impact on 
environmental  indicators  can  be  assessed.  Different  environmental  indicators  have 
been  identified  based  on  the  findings  from  Task  2  and  tightly linked  to  model  output 
variables. In a first step the impacts on resources in the different policy scenarios are 
assessed  against  those  foreseen  under  the  baseline  scenario  by  looking  at  the 
performance  of  selected  indicators.  In  a  second  step  constraints  on  specific  model 
variables  are  introduced  that  aim  to  reduce  impacts,  shift  production  patterns  and 
biomass origin. By this means we will assess not only implications of biomass use for 
the  global  environment  but  also  implications  of  potential  policy  interventions  for 
biomass resource efficiency in EU28. 

2.  Methodology 
For the analysis of impacts a two-stage approach is followed: 

In Stage 1, a screening of environmental indicators is carried out. A first necessary 
step  is  the  definition  of  these  indicators  for  the  analysis  of  impacts.  This  is  done  by 
aggregating,  converting  and  interpreting  direct  model  output  variables  in  a  way  that 
allows  for  linking  them  to  environmental  concerns,  such  as  GHG  emissions,  land 
conversion,  loss  of  biodiversity,  water  and  soil  issues.  In  this  analysis  we  focus  on 
environmental indicators only, as economic aspects are  covered by Task 3 and social 
aspects are outside the scope of this study. 

Selected indicators related  to GHG  emissions and potential environmental impacts on 
soil, water and biodiversity are screened in each of the selected policy scenarios (see 
Report  on  Task  3  for  the  description  of  these  scenarios).  The  changes  in  scenario 
assumptions  are  expected  to  affect  indicators  differently.  As  an  example,  the 
increased  EU  Biomass  Import  Scenario  can  be  expected  to  increase  the  pressure  on 
the  forest  and  agricultural  sectors  in  the  Rest  of  the  World  (RoW)  to  produce 
bioenergy  feedstocks  which  in  turn  may  affect  the  environmental  indicators  in  these 
countries. The monitoring of indicators across all scenarios will allow the identification 
of those indicators that are most variable and show most extreme responses. 

In  Stage  2,  environmental  constraints  are  introduced  to  the  model.  The  analysis 
focuses  on  those  Stage-1  environmental  indicators  that  are  most  variable  across 
scenarios.  These indicators are  converted into  environmental constraints. This means 
that if a significant change in an indicator was observed in Stage 1 (e.g. conversion of 
highly  biodiverse  grazing  land);  in  Stage  2  the  respective  model  variable  is 
constrained to not exceed a certain threshold (e.g. no conversion of highly biodiverse 
grazing land beyond Baseline levels). 

1  Indirect  impacts  or  displacement  effects  (e.g.  an  indirect  land  use  change)  are 
occurring  when  increased  demand  for  one  product  pushes  production  of  the  same  or 
other products to other areas or increases demand of other products to substitute the 
displaced one. 

May 2016 5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

The  implemented  constraints  are  grouped  by  topic  (land  use,  biodiversity,  GHG 
emissions, soil and water) to be able to present them in a more aggregated manner. 
Within  Stage  2,  we  will  differentiate  between  model  runs  with  a  combination  of 
individual  constraints  for  a  single  scenario  (Dimension  1)  and  one  model  set  up 
where  all  constraints  combined  are  implemented  in  all  prospective  policy 
scenarios (Dimension 2, see Figure 1).  

2.1.  Definition  of 
(Stage 1) 

indicators  and  assessment  of 

impacts 

2.1.1.  Definition of indicators 

The  main  indicators  for  assessing  resource  efficiency  of  biomass  use  in  EU28  in 
different policy scenarios are derived from the following model output variable: 

  Production  of  biomass  for  EU  by  biomass  type  (i.e.  round  wood,  forest  and 

agricultural harvest residues, energy crops, industrial-by products) 

  Land  use  of  the  various  classes  of  land  being  accounted  for  (forest,  energy 

plantations, cropland, grazing land, other natural land) 

  Change in production patterns (forest and agricultural intensification) 
  Use of biomass in relevant sectors (i.e. energy, material) 
  Import  and  export  of  biomass  to  (and  from)  EU  with  breakdown  by  type  and 

export/import region.  

  Trends of price indices and ranges for different biomass types (for EU and other 

regions of importance) 

  Change in costs and profits for alternative biomass uses and biomass producing 

sectors 

All  the  points  above  are  described  in  more  detail  in  the  Annex  to  this  report. 
Furthermore, all of the above mentioned indicators can directly be extracted from the 
model results for each scenario.  

In  addition  to  the  Task  3  indicators  above,  specific  indicators  for  the  assessment  of 
environmental  impacts  are  proposed.  An  overview  of  environmental  indicators  is 
provided in Table 1 below. The list is mostly constrained by the capability and level of 
detail  of  the  modeling  framework.  The  indicators  listed  can  either  be  directly  or 
indirectly  derived  from  model  output  and  are  expected  to  be  sensitive  to  changes  in 
scenario assumptions. 

In the following some important variables of the models GLOBIOM/G4M that serve as 
the  basis  for  establishing  environmental  indicators,  are  defined.  The  FAO  FRA 
definition is used when classifying land as forest, not including land that has trees on 
it  but  is  predominantly  under  agricultural  or  urban  land  use  (FAO  2012).  Protected 
forests  (as  defined  by  WDPA  Consortium  2004)  are  excluded  from  the  analysis  and 
no conversion or use is allowed. Forest that is not protected is considered as potential 
production  forest.  The  model  allocates  harvests  to  this  area  so  that  the  projected 
demand  for  wood  for  material  and  energy  purposes  will  be  satisfied.  These  forests 
include natural and semi-natural forests, as well as forest plantations. Forests that are 
used  in  a  certain  period  to  meet  the  wood  demand  (so–called  used  forests)  are 
modelled to be managed for woody biomass production. This implies a certain rotation 
time, thinning events and final harvest. Unused forest does currently not contribute 
to  wood  supply  (due  to  economic  reasons).  However,  they  may  still  be  a  source  for 
collection of firewood for subsistence use. The model allows for conversion from used 
forests  to  unused,  and  unused  to  used  forests.  Area  classified  as  afforestation 

May 2016 6 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

includes land that has been converted to forest after the year 2000 (start of the model 
run).  All  new  forests  established  through  afforestation  are  considered  to  be  used  for 
wood supply. 

Agricultural  land  includes  cropland,  grazing  land,  short  rotation  coppice  and  other 
natural  land.  Cropland  is  land  used  for  crop  production.  This  also  includes  set-aside 
areas  declared  as  cropland,  but  not  currently  used  for  crop  harvesting  (e.g.  fallow 
land). This land category also includes annual and perennial lignocellulosic plants (e.g. 
miscanthus and switchgrass) that are increasingly used for biofuel production as well 
as  Short  Rotation  Coppice.  Short  rotation  coppices  are  formed  by  tree  plantations 
established and managed under an intensive, short-rotation regime on cropland. They 
can  be  established  with  quickly  growing  species  such  as  poplar  and  willow,  and 
managed  under  a  coppice  system  in  a  two-to-four-year  rotation.  Grazing  land 
contains  of  pasture  lands  used  for  ruminant  grazing.  It  does  not  include  natural 
grasslands.  Other  natural  vegetation  or  other  natural  land  is  a  category  that 
includes a mixture of land that cannot be properly classified such as unused cropland 
(if not  fallow)  or  unused  grassland, including natural  grasslands.  In  addition  to  these 
classes,  GLOBIOM  also  identifies  other  agricultural  land  (e.g.  vegetable  production, 
vineyards, orchards etc.), settlements and wetlands. This land is ignored by the model 
and kept fixed in the scenarios. 

Besides  the  above  mentioned  categories  of  land  use  we  differentiate  areas  of  high 
biodiversity value (HBV). The delineation of HBV areas is based on the Carbon and 
Biodiversity  Atlas  by  UNEP-WCMC2.  This  atlas  presents  a  set  of  maps  of  different 
biodiversity  hot  spots.  In  this  study,  we  assume  that  where  at  least  three  maps  of 
biodiversity  hot  spots  of  species  groups  (e.g.  birds,  mammals)  overlap  land  is 
considered  to  be  of  high  biodiversity  value.  These  areas  are  then  overlaid  with  the 
land use information in GLOBIOM. HBV areas can be found on cropland, grazing land, 
used  and  unused  forests  and  other  natural  land.  Similarly  a  map  of  intact  forest 
landscapes  is  integrated  in  the  analysis  of  impacts3.  Intact  forest  landscapes  are 
coherent areas of natural ecosystems within the zone of current forest extent, showing 
no  signs  of  significant  human  activity,  and  large  enough  that  all  native  biodiversity, 
including viable populations of wide-ranging species, could be maintained. Further we 
consider areas with steep slopes identified using a digital elevation map. Slopes with 
an inclination of more than 30% are mapped and the share of steep terrain per world 
region  and  land  use  class  is  calculated.  These  areas  are  considered  too  steep  for 
certain land management practices and can potentially be excluded. 

2 http://www.unep.org/pdf/carbon_biodiversity.pdf 
3  Potapov  P.,  et  al.  2008.  Mapping  the  World's  Intact  Forest  Landscapes  by  Remote 
Sensing. Ecology and Society, 13 (2); http://www.intactforests.org 

May 2016 7 

 
 
 
                                           
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Table  1:  Suggested  environmental 
indicators,  model  datasets  and 
interpretation.  Indicators  in  italic  are  indicators  that  can  only  be  estimated 
from  model  statistics  and  are  not  explicitly  modelled  (e.g.  indicators  that 
relate to land with high biodiversity).4 
Indicators 
Land use 
Basic land use 
categories 

  Forest area [ha], including the categories Afforestation, 

Model variables with units for interpretation 

Dataset 

Used Forest, Unused Forest 

Model output, 
projection based 
on GLC 2000 

Biodiversity 
Unused and intact 
forests 

Intact forest 
landscape, 
Greenpeace 

Land with high 
biodiversity value 
(HBV)  

UNEP-UCMC 
biodiversity atlas 

Forest rotation 
period 

Greenhouse Gases 
Emissions from 
agriculture and 
livestock 

Forest rotation 
period from 
national inventory 

Model output, 
RUMINANT model 
integrated in 
GLOBIOM 

Emissions from 
forest activities and 
Harvested Wood 
Products 

Model output 
based on GLC 
2000, global 
forest carbon map 

  Area of Deforestation [ha] 
  Area of Cropland [ha], including the category Short 

Rotation Coppice 

  Area of Grazing land [ha] 
  Area of other natural land [ha] 

  Unused forest area [ha] 
  Intact forest area [ha] 
  Unused forest converted to other land use [ha] 
  Intact forest converted to used forest [ha] 
  Area of land with HBV (forests, wetland, grazing land) [ha] 
  Area of land with HBV (forests, wetland, grazing land) 

converted to other land use [ha] 

  Biomass extracted from land with HBV (forests, wetland, 

grazing land) [t] 

  Rotation period currently being applied [years] 

  Total net emissions [t CO2 eq.] 
  N2O emissions from fertilizer application [t CO2 eq.] 
  N2O and CH4 emissions from cropland [t CO2 eq.] 
  N2O and CH4 emissions from livestock management [t CO2 

eq.] 

  Soil CO2 emissions from cropland [t CO2 eq.] 
  CO2 emissions from Afforestation [t CO2 eq.] 
  CO2 emissions from Deforestation [t CO2 eq.] 
  CO2 emissions from Forest management [t CO2 eq.] 
  Total net forest emissions [t CO2 eq.] 
  CO2 emissions from forest biomass [t CO2 eq.] 
  CO2 emissions from forest soil [t CO2 eq.] 
  CO2 emissions from pool of Harvested Wood Products [t 

CO2 eq.] 

Emissions from 
bioenergy 
Total net emissions 
Water and soil 
Plantation of SRC 
on Cropland  

Water used for 
agriculture 
Steep slopes / 
sensitive soil 
classes 

Residue/branch 
extraction in forests 

Conversion from 
grazing land to 
cropland 

Model output 

  CO2 emissions from the production and use of bioenergy [t 

Sum 

  Total net GHG emissions [t CO2 eq.] 

CO2 eq.] 

Water stress 
maps; maps on 
water scarcity/ 
stress 
Model output 

Elevation model; 
Harmonized World 
Soil Database 

Species specific 
biomass 
expansion factor 
Model output 
based on GLC 
2000 

  SRC on land with water stress [ha] 

  Irrigation area [ha] 
  Water used for irrigation [km3] 
  Area of land with restrictions to avoid soil erosion [ha] 
  Biomass extraction from forest on steep terrain and 

sensitive characteristics [t] 

  Forest area where biomass is left [ha] 
  Amount of dead wood left in forest [m³] 

  Grazing land area [ha] 
  Grazing land area converted to Cropland [ha] 

4 For a more detailed specification of model assumptions and data sources used within 
the modeling structure, we refer to the Task 3 report on detailed model assumptions. 

May 2016 8 

 
 
                                           
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

2.1.2.  Assessment of impacts 

Within  Stage  1  indicators  will  be  looked  at  individually  across  all  scenarios.  This 
includes an analysis of trends of indicators in the Baseline. This analysis reveals basic 
drivers  of  indicators  and  their  development  over  time;  an  information  that  is  also 
relevant to interpret differences between scenarios. It also helps to check whether any 
changes  regarding  the  choice  of  indicators  and  the  interpretation  of  the  underlying 
model  output  are  necessary  and  how  indicators  compare  with independent  estimates 
from the literature.  

More  relevant  for  the  purpose  of  the  project  are  differences  between  scenarios. 
Indicators  that  show  a  significant  sensitivity  to  changes  in  scenario  assumptions  are 
analyzed in detail. Impacts in EU28 and RoW are compared and the results also looked 
at the level of selected world regions where useful. 

As shown in Table 1, there are direct indicators that the model calculates as absolute 
numbers  (indicators  related  to  land  use  conversion,  e.g.  unused  forest  converted  to 
cropland) and indirect indicators that can only be estimated from model statistics and 
are  not  explicitly  modelled  (indicators  related  to  specific  land  conversion,  e.g.  land 
with high biodiversity). The differentiation is relevant for Stage 2. Direct indicators can 
be used directly as constraints (e.g. as an absolute amount of unused forest area not 
to be converted). Using indirect indicators as constraints, instead, will be based on the 
original map information, e.g. by clipping out areas of high biodiversity value without 
knowing whether exactly those lands are actually affected in the policy scenario. 

2.2.  Exploring  implications  of  environmental  constraints  for 

biomass resource efficiency (Stage 2) 

After  the  analysis  of  impacts  of  scenario  assumptions  on  environmental  indicators  in 
Stage 1, the implications of setting environmental constraints for EU biomass resource 
efficiency  to  avoid  these  impacts  will  be  assessed.  Within  this  second  stage, 
environmental indicators that showed significant changes across  scenarios in Stage 1 
are  reformulated  into  constraints.  With  a  second  set  of  model  runs  we  then  evaluate 
the  impact  of  those  constraints  across  policy  scenarios  on  resource  efficiency  of 
biomass production, trade and use in EU28.  
Indicators  for  assessing  resource  efficiency  of  biomass  use  in  the  constrained 
scenarios are the following: 

  Production of biomass in the EU by biomass type (i.e. round wood,  forest and 

 

agricultural harvest residues, energy crops, industrial-by products) 
Import  and  export  of  biomass  to  (and  from)  EU  with  breakdown  by  type  and 
export/import region.  

  Use of biomass in relevant sectors (i.e. energy, material) 
  Land  use  of  the  various  classes  of  land  being  accounted  for  (forest,  energy 

plantations, cropland, grazing land, other natural land) 

  Total GHG emissions from the land use sector 

The analysis of constrained scenarios is done along two dimensions: an assessment of 
the implications of each constraint individually for one scenario (Dimension 1) and an 
assessment of the implications of all constraints combined on all scenarios (Dimension 
2,  see  Figure  1).  This  approach  provides  us  with  a  good  overview  of  implications  of 
constraints  across  scenarios  but  avoids  an  enormous  amount  of  scenarios  to  be 
analyzed,  if  all  possible  combinations  of  constraints  and  scenarios  would  be 
considered. 

May 2016 9 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

2.2.1.  Exploring  implications  of  single  constraints  in  the  EU  Emission  reduction 

scenario (Dimension 1) 

is 

formulated.  Constraints  correspond  to 

Based  on  the  findings  from  the  analysis  of  impacts  a  set  of  the  most  important 
environmental  constraints 
individual 
indicators: for example, if for the indicator “Area of land with high biodiversity value” a 
significant reduction in a scenario has been observed in Stage 1, in Stage 2 the model 
includes  a  constraint  on  the  conversion  of  land  with  high  biodiversity  value.  The 
constraint  can  be  implemented  very  stringently,  e.g.  allowing  no  conversion  at  all, 
allow  no  additional  conversion  beyond  the  baseline  scenario  or  allow for  a  fraction  of 
the  land  up to  a  certain  threshold.  As  in  this study  differences  between  baseline  and 
policy  scenarios  are  in  the  focus  of  the  analysis,  thresholds  will  be  set  mostly  at  the 
level of the baseline. For the conversion of land with high biodiversity value this would 
mean  that  not  more  than  the  area  converted  in  the  baseline  scenario  can  be 
converted.  Similarly,  as  an  example,  if  in  a  region  a  significant  higher  level  of 
conversion from grazing land to cropland is observed in a policy scenario as compared 
to the baseline in Stage 1, in Stage 2 the conversion will not be allowed in the model 
unless it remains below the level of baseline conversion. 

Each constraint will be assessed individually for the EU emission reduction scenario 
(dimension  1).  This  analysis  will  provide  information  concerning  how  different 
constraints  impact  scenario  results.  Compared  to  model  simulations  without 
constraints,  these  runs  are  expected  to  come  to  different  outcomes,  e.g.  shifts  in 
production,  trade,  allocation  of  biomass  to  different  uses  etc.  The  EU  emission 
reduction  scenario  depicts  a  development  where  more  stringent  GHG  emission 
abatement targets for EU come into play, enhancing the development of the bioenergy 
sector.  It  assumes  higher  targets  for  EU  in  terms  of  GHG  emission  reduction in  non-
land  use  sectors  in  comparison  to  the  baseline  scenario.  Therefore  it  is  a  scenario 
where constraints on domestic and global biomass supply are expected to have strong 
effects on resource efficiency. 

2.2.2.  Exploring implications of combined constraints across scenarios (Dimension 2) 

After  each  constraint  has  been  evaluated  in  terms  of  its  implications  on  model 
outcomes,  the  impact  of  all  constraints  combined  will  be  assessed  for  all  prospective 
policy scenarios. The evaluation along Dimensions 1 and 2 will be done with respect to 
impacts  on  major  output  variables  identified  in  Task  3,  such  as  production  level  per 
biomass  type  (e.g.  solid  wood,  residues,  energy  crops,  industrial  by-products,  etc.), 
land  use,  production  patterns,  biomass  use  and  trade  as  well  as  price  indices  for 
biomass goods. 

May 2016 10 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Environmental constraints 

Area of 
unused 
forest 

Area with 
high bio-
diversity 

Other 
natural 
land 

… 

All 
combined 

Baseline 

Baseline Scenario 

Dimension 1 

EU Emission Reduction 
Scenario 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

i

   D
m
e
n
s
i
o
n

2

√ 

Policy 
scenario 

Constant EU Bioenergy 
Demand Scenario 

Increased RoW 
Bioenergy Demand 
Scenario 

Increased EU Biomass 
Import Scenario 

√ 

√ 

√ 

Figure 1: Overview of how the environmental constraints will be applied and 
their implications evaluated across the policy scenarios in two dimensions. 

May 2016 11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

3.  Results  of  Stage  1:  Assessment  of  environmental 

impacts in Baseline and policy scenarios 

3.1.  Development of impacts observed in the Baseline scenario 

In  this  section  the  impact  of  the  Baseline  scenario  on  land  use,  HBV  areas,  GHG 
emissions  etc.  is  analyzed.  A  good  understanding  of  the  development  of  indicators 
under the policy scenarios compared to the Baseline is needed because the results of 
this  analysis  are  used  to  identify  the  need  for  environmental  constraints  to  mitigate 
impacts during Stage 2 of the analysis. In most cases the constraints will be applied to 
policy  scenarios  in  a  way  that  the  Baseline  impacts  shall  not  be  exceeded  (e.g. 
exclusion  of  certain  land  use  change  beyond  Baseline  level  is  not  allowed).  It  is  still 
useful  to  understand  the  trends  of  certain  indicators  in  the  Baseline  scenario  and 
relate them to impacts of policy scenarios. 

3.1.1.  Development of land use 

The overall development of land categories in the EU28 is illustrated in Figure 2. The 
cropland area is increasing by 14 Mio ha from about 106 Mio ha in 2010 to 120 Mio ha 
in 2050. Also total forest area is increasing by 14 Mio ha from 154 Mio ha to 168 Mio 
ha.  Both  expansions  take  place  at  the  expense  of  the  category  other  natural  land 
(abandoned  cropland,  unused  grassland,  etc.)  which  is  declining  from  60  Mio  ha  in 
2010 to 32 Mio ha in 2050. The grazing land area (56 Mio ha), however, stays, with a 
slight  increase  of  0.4 Mio  ha,  almost  constant.  Unused  forests  remain  rather 
stable  over  this  time  period  (declining  slightly  from  48 Mha  in  2010  to  around 
42 Mio ha in 2050. Since deforestation is low in EU28 (compared to the RoW), most of 
the increase of used forest is due to an expansion of the forest area by afforestation of 
22 Mio ha new forests until 2050. The exact allocation of new forest to used or unused 
forest  cannot  be  done.  Therefore  the  figure  does  not  show  explicitly  afforestation 
areas. However, it can be assumed that a large share of the newly established forest 
is also contributing to wood supply. 

May 2016 12 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  2:  Development  of  different  land  use  categories  in  EU28  for  the 
Baseline scenario.  

Also  for  the  land  use  pattern  in  the  Rest  of  the  World  (RoW)  (Figure  3),  a  clear 
increase of cropland (878 Mio ha in 2010 and 1097 Mio ha in 2050) and a decrease of 
other natural land (from 3,120 Mio ha to 2,588 Mio ha) can be observed. In the RoW, 
grazing land area increases by more than 250 Mio ha from 1,603 Mio ha to 1,871 Mio 
ha. Used forest area increases over the time period (from 712 Mio ha to 1,010 Mio ha) 
in  addition  to  354 Mio  ha  of  new  forest  established  until  2050  (not  shown  explicitly). 
The area of unused forest decreases by 10% from 2,454 Mio ha to 2,200 Mio ha. 

May 2016 13 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  3:  Development  of  different  land  use  categories  in  the  rest  of  the 
world for the Baseline scenario. 

In  the  following,  the  land  use  pattern  of  Sub-Saharan  Africa  and  Latin  America  are 
presented as these two regions showed strong change in all land use types. 

Sub-Saharan  Africa  is  characterized  by  a  relative  low  amount  of  cropland  and  used 
forest area in 2010. Both almost double until 2050 (Figure 4). Also grazing land area, 
that is dominant in Sub-Saharan Africa, increases by 12% over the time period. As a 
result  unused  forest  area  as  well  as  other  natural  land  decrease  by  20%  and  more 
than 30%, respectively, until 2050. The latter is likely to occur on productive areas of 
natural grassland. 

May 2016 14 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 4: Development of different land use categories in Sub-Saharan Africa 
for the Baseline scenario. 

In Latin America, used forest area covers only 5% of the land in 2010 (Figure 5). This 
land  use  category  increases  only  slightly  from  2010  to  2050.  Still  unused  forests 
decrease  strongly  over  the  time  period  (2010:  629  Mio  ha;  2050:  535  Mio  ha).  The 
main  cause  here  is  deforestation  due  to  cropland  and  grazing  land  expansion  in  the 
first  half  of  the  simulation  period.  Later  the  expansion  of  cropland  and  grazing  land 
occurs  more  into  other  natural  land.  The  increase  of  new  forest  area  through 
afforestation is also significant (55 Mio ha in 2050, not shown explicitly). 

May 2016 15 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  5:  Development  of  different  land  use  categories  in  Latin  America  for 
the Baseline scenario. 

The  RoW  total  forest  area  is  expected  to  first  further  decrease  from 
3,166 Mio ha (2010) to 3,162 Mio ha (2020) but increase after that until 2050 
to  3,211 Mio ha  (Figure  6).  Clear  decreases  of  the  total  forest  area  from  2010  to 
2050 are especially visible for Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The latter shows 
a recovering trend after 2030. In the EU28, the forest area increases during this 
time period steadily by 14 Mio ha from 154 to 167 Mio ha. The total forest area 
includes  the  dynamic  of  used  and  unused  forest,  afforestation  and  deforestation.  For 
an assessment of impacts it is important to separate these. 

May 2016 16 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 6: Development of total forest area in 12 regions of the world  for the 
Baseline scenario. 

During  the  Baseline  scenario  the  area  of  used  forests  increases  in  several 
regions of the world (Figure 7). This comes either at the expense of unused forests 
or conversion of non-forest land to forest. In EU28 unused forest remains fairly stable 
over  the  Baseline  simulation  period.  However,  strong  declines  of  unused  forest  occur 
during  this  time  period  in  Latin  America  (-94 Mio ha;  -15%),  Sub-Saharan  Africa  (-
86 Mio ha; -18%), USA (-19 Mio ha; -21%), South-East Asia (-17 Mio ha; -13%), and 
CIS  (-15 Mio  ha;  -2%).  The  reasons  for  the  loss  differ  and  can  either  be  due  to 
conversion to used forests as well as conversion to cropland or grazing land. 

Figure  7:  Development  of  unused  forest  in  12  regions  of  the  world  for  the 
Baseline scenario. 

May 2016 17 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Table  2:  Distribution  of  intact  forest  landscape  in  12  regions  of  the  world  in 
2000 

Region 

EU28 

Other West and Central Europe 

USA 

Canada 

Latin America 

CIS 

Oceania 

Eastern Asia 

South Asia 

South-East Asia 

Middle-East and North Africa 

Sub-Saharan Africa 

World 

Intact Forest in 2000 [1000 ha]  % of Total Forests in the 

region 

2,230 

178 

53,881 

304,298 

458,763 

276,891 

30,576 

4,645 

4,058 

48,562 

0 

99,932 

1,284,014 

0.9 

0.4 

17.2 

71.4 

55.8 

33.7 

25.8 

1.5 

3.2 

25.0 

0.0 

14.1 

31.0 

Parts of the unused forests shown in Figure 7 are primary forest. However, no global 
data on the extent of primary forest are available that could be  easily integrated into 
the  modeling  framework.  The  dataset  on  Intact  Forest  Landscapes  (cf.  Chapter  2.1) 
can  be  used  as  a  proxy  to  estimate  likely  impacts  on  primary  forests.  Intact  forests 
are  forest  landscapes  that  show  no  signs  of  significant  human  activity.  Intact  forest 
landscapes  could  therefore  consist  only  of  primary  forests.  However,  there  might  be 
still areas of primary forest that are not considered an intact forest landscape because 
of small size and fragmented structure. In the year 2000, intact forests covered about 
30 %  of  the  global  forest  area,  with  high  relative  shares  in  Canada  (71%)  and  Latin 
America (56%), and low shares in Eastern Asia, South Asia and Europe (Table 2). The 
conversion of unused forests will very likely also affect primary forests. However, the 
explicit  impact  in  terms  of  area  converted  cannot  be  calculated  due  to  lack  of 
geographical references for the modelled land use change. 

The  area  of  used  forests,  including  afforestation,  increases  in  almost  all 
regions of  the  world  between  2000  and  2050  (Figure  8).  For  example, in  EU28, 
area  of used  forest increases by 19 Mio ha from  105 Mio ha in 2010 to 124 Mio ha in 
2050 as a result of  expansion of forest area through  afforestation and a  reduction  of 
the deforestation rate.  In Eastern Asia the increase of used forests of  69 Mio ha from 
2010  to  2050  (57%)  is  almost  equivalent  with  the  area  of  new  forests  in  2050 
(64 Mio ha),  indicating  that  only  small  parts  of  the  former  unused  forest  area  were 
converted  to  used  forest.  In  Sub-Saharan  Africa  the  used  forest  area  increases  by 
96 Mio ha  compared  to  a  conversion  of  unused  forests  of  86 Mio ha.  So  here  the 
intensification of forestry is mainly through conversion of unused forest to used forest. 
In  other  regions,  however,  the  increase  of  used  forest  areas  is  much  lower  than  the 
conversion  of  unused  forests.  For  example,  in  Latin  America,  the  used  forest  area 
increased by 29 Mio ha but unused forest area decreased by 94 Mio ha. This indicates 
that  forest  areas  have  been  deforested,  i.e.  converted  to  other  land  use  types, 
especially  cropland  and  grazing  land.  The  drop  of  the  area  of  used  forest  in  Sub-

May 2016 18 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Saharan  Africa  that  can  be  observed  in  Figure  8  in  2040  is  due  to  an  increased 
afforestation in that region (see also Figure 11). 

Figure  8:  Development  of  used  forest  in  12  regions  of  the  world  for  the 
Baseline scenario. 

Deforestation can be more explicitly expressed as the accumulated loss of forest areas 
existing  in  2000  (Figure  9)  and  as  an  annual  deforestation  rate  in  relation  to  forest 
area  in  2000  (Figure  10).  The  deforestation  rate  represents  the  decline  of  used  and 
unused  forests  already  existing  in  2000  without  taking  into  account  newly  afforested 
areas. Large scale deforestation under the Baseline scenario is taking place until 2050 
in  Latin  America  (loss  of  170 Mio ha)  and  in  Sub-Saharan  Africa  (loss  of  almost 
100 Mio ha). In total until 2050 360 Mio ha of forest will be lost in RoW, 4.4 Mio ha in 
EU28. Most deforestation rates are currently (for the period 2000-2010) below 0.5%, 
except  for  Latin  America,  Sub-Saharan  Africa,  South-East  Asia  and  Oceania.  The 
Baseline  projects  a  constant  decline  of  relative  deforestation  rates  until  2050  with 
most remarkable changes for South-East Asia and Latin America (from 0.9 and 0.7 to 
0.2 and 0.4, Figure 10). 

May 2016 19 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 9: Loss of forest area existing in 2000 (accumulated) in 12 regions of 
the world for the Baseline scenario. 

Figure  10:  Annual  deforestation  rate  in  relation  to  forest  existing  in  2000  in 
12 regions of the world for the Baseline scenario. 

May 2016 20 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  11: Development of afforestation  areas  in  12  regions of the  world for 
the Baseline scenario. 

The conversion of forest in certain regions of the world is contrasted by the expansion 
of forest area through afforestation in other parts of the world.  Figure 11 shows that 
countries  with  high  deforestation  rates  can  also  have  high  afforestation  rates. 
According to the model, by 2025 about 50 Mio ha of new forests will be established in 
Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa with an increasing rate despite still high rates of 
forest  loss.  Another  extreme  example  is  Eastern  Asia.  Most  of  the  new  forests 
established  until  2050  will  grow  in  China  (almost  100 Mio ha)  where  recent 
deforestation is low due to relatively low forest cover. 

May 2016 21 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

3.1.2.  Development of land with high biodiversity value (HBV) 

The  development  of  areas  of  high  biodiversity  value  (HBV)  is  a  key  indicator  for 
assessing effects on biodiversity. The conversion of these areas is very likely related to 
a  loss  of  biodiversity.  This  applies  to  areas  under  forest,  grazing  land  and  other 
natural  land,  in  particular.  The  loss  of  HBV  area  can  only  be  approximated  by 
assuming  that  HBV  land  is  converted  at  the  same  relative  rate  as  other  non-HBV 
areas. This means, that the relative share of HBV areas in each land use category will 
not change over time. This assumption must be taken into account when interpreting 
the data below.  

Figure 12 shows that in many regions of the world a significant conversion of areas of 
HBV (including forest, grazing land, cropland and other natural land) is likely to occur 
until 2050. However, depending on the type of conversion (e.g. to used forest, grazing 
land  or  cropland),  negative  effects  on  the  biodiversity  may  be  more  or  less  severe. 
Therefore, for the conversion of unused forests, for the three regions with the highest 
amount  of  HBV  area  and  with  high  conversion  rates  (Latin  America,  South-East  Asia 
and Sub-Saharan Africa), a detailed analysis is presented below. 

Figure  12:  Development  of  area  of  HBV  areas  converted  in  the  Baseline 
scenario in 12 regions of the world. 

The  conversion  of  unused  forest  with  HBV  is  high  in  most  regions  (Figure  13).  In 
regions  like  Latin  America,  South-East  Asia  and  Sub-Saharan  Africa  the 
conversion of unused forest accounts for about half of the total conversion of 
HBV  areas.  Focusing  on  Latin  America,  most  HBV  areas  converted  belong  to  other 
natural land. Unused forest areas of HBV as well as other natural land in Latin America 
are mainly converted to grazing land and with a lower proportion to cropland and new 
forests (Figure 14). 

May 2016 22 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 13: Development of accumulated area of unused forest area classified 
as HBV converted in 12 regions of the world for the Baseline scenario. 

Figure  14:  Development  of  annual  area  converted  of  unused  forest,  grazing 
land  and  other  natural  land  classified  as  HBV  in  Latin  America  for  the 
Baseline scenario. 

Most  HBV  areas  in  Sub-Saharan  Africa  are  on  grazing  land  and  other  natural  land. 
Other natural land with HBV is mainly converted to  grazing land, and grazing land  to 
cropland  (Figure  15).  The  conversion  of  unused  forest  of  HBV  to  used  forest  of  HBV, 
however, also occurs. 

May 2016 23 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  15:  Development  of  annual  area  converted  of  unused  forest,  grazing 
land  and  other  natural  land  classified  as  HBV  in  Sub-Saharan  Africa  for  the 
Baseline scenario. 

In South-East Asia, areas of HBV occur most frequently in unused forests and on other 
natural  land,  but  also  with  a  high  proportion  for  cropland.  Unused  forest  of  HBV  is 
converted mainly to grazing land, but also significantly to used forests, especially from 
2040  until  2050  (Figure  16).  Also  other  natural  land  is  mainly  converted  to  grazing 
land. 

Figure  16:  Development  of  annual  area  converted  of  unused  forest,  grazing 
land  and  other  natural  land  classified  as  HBV  in  South-East  Asia  for  the 
Baseline scenario. 

May 2016 24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

3.1.3.  Development of GHG emissions from land use activities 

RoW  emissions  from  land  use  have  different  trends  in  the  Baseline  scenario  for 
different categories as can be observed from Figure 17. While deforestation emissions 
are decreasing, other land use change  emissions, including the conversion of  grazing 
land and other natural land to cropland, and also agriculture emissions are increasing. 
Increasing is also the sink from afforestation. Total LULUCF in RoW is a net sink in 
2000 but projected to turn into a source of CO2 as of 2010. This is partly due 
to  the  forest  management  sink  that  is  declining  over  the  projection  period, 
due  to  intensification  of  forest  management.  In  addition  emissions  from  the 
agriculture sector are constantly increasing. It has to be noted that uncertainties 
associated  with  these  estimates  are  very  high.  Especially  forest  management 
emissions  at  global  level  need  to  be  interpreted  carefully.  The  underlying  database 
(e.g. age class distributions and management information) is very scarce and at global 
level such estimates are difficult due to different definitions of forest, carbon densities 
and pools considered in existing studies. The estimates as provided here do not cover 
emissions from grazing land nor RoW emissions from cropland. 

Figure  17:  Development  of  Agriculture  emissions  and  LULUCF  emissions  and 
removals in RoW for the Baseline scenario. 

May 2016 25 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 18: Development of CO2 emissions from deforestation in 12 regions of 
the world for the Baseline scenario. 

Deforestation  is  the  main  source  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  forest  activities, 
and  GHG  emissions 
from  deforestation  correspond  directly  to  the  modelled 
deforestation area (cf. Figure 9). Global GHG emissions from deforestation in 2010 are 
6,295  Mt  CO2  and  they  decline  to  3,053 Mt  CO2  in  2050  (Figure  18).  GHG  emissions 
from deforestation are the highest in Latin America (2010: 2,932 Mt CO2) and in Sub-
Saharan  Africa  (2010:  1,883 Mt  CO2)  with  the  tendency  to  decline  until  2050 
(1,600 Mt CO2 and 800 Mt CO2; Figure 18).  

The  accuracy  of  deforestation  emission  estimates  can  be  assessed  by  comparing 
different literature sources with estimates of this study (Figure 19). Historic data, but 
also estimates of the more recent time, show a large spread. This reflects the diversity 
of methods, approaches, data sources and assumptions that vary in studies estimating 
deforestation  emissions.  Estimates  of  this  study  tend  to  be  at  the  higher  end  of 
emissions from deforestation calculated in recent studies.  Decomposition into regions 
is therefore useful. 

Figure 20 compares regional estimates from the literature with results of this study for 
the period 2000-2010.  It  seems that  emissions from deforestation are  overestimated 
for  Africa  and  tropical  America  if  looking  at  total  emissions.  The  range  of  estimates 
found  for  Africa  in  the  literature  is  remarkably  low  and  does  not  reflect  uncertainties 
associated with these estimates. Emissions from deforestation in Asia are in-line with 
literature  values.  However,  for  this  region  the  spread  of  estimates  is  huge,  spanning 
almost an order of magnitude from 250 to 2200 Mt CO2. The results of this study fall 
into the ranges found by other studies. There are a number of assumptions that lead 
to  the  wide  spread  of  estimates  found.  Most  existing  studies  for  comparison  do  not 
provide  sufficient  information  to  reconcile  estimates  and  factor  out  sources  for 
differences.  When looking only at emissions from the biomass pool, estimates of this 
study are much closer to literature values.  For Africa differences result probably from 
different  carbon  maps.  Deforestation  areas  are  similar  to  other  studies  (not  shown). 
Estimates for Asia of this study do not include peat emissions that form a big source in 
that  region  and  have  been  included  in  some  studies.  Including  peat  leads  to 
considerably higher total deforestation emissions. 

May 2016 26 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

The uncertainties found from this comparison need to be considered when comparing 
policy  scenarios.  Even  if  the  errors  are  relatively  large,  differences  between  policy 
scenarios  can  still  be  significant  because  uncertainties  are  more  or  less  the  same  for 
all scenarios. 

Figure  19:  Comparison  of  global  deforestation  estimates  from  the  literature 
and  this  study  for  the  biomass  pool  and  total.  Note  that  estimates  apply 
different  definition  of  forest,  different  carbon  densities  and  include  different 
pools. This is causing the relatively large spread of estimates. 

May 2016 27 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 20: Comparison of regional deforestation estimates from the literature 
and  this  study  (tropical  forests  only).  Note  that  estimates  apply  different 
definition  of  forest,  different  carbon  densities  and  include  different  pools. 
This is causing the relatively large spread of estimates. 

Figure  21:  Development  of  Agriculture  emissions  and  LULUCF  emissions  and 
removals  (i.e.  the  sum  of  Deforestation,  Afforestation,  Forest  management, 
cropland  CO2  and  other  land  use  change  emissions)  in  EU28  for  the  Baseline 
scenario. 

May 2016 28 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 21 describes the development of emissions and removals of different activities 
in  the  LULUCF  and  agriculture  sector  from  2000  to  2050.  Overall  net  LULUCF 
emissions  are  a  relatively  stable  net  sink  in  the  EU  at  around  -200  Mt  CO2. 
Deforestation emissions are decreasing slowly from 70 Mt CO2 in 2010 to less than 50 
Mt CO2 in 2050. The current driver of deforestation in EU28 is mostly infrastructure. A 
decline  of  large  infrastructure  projects  in  EU  countries  is  plausible  and  such  a 
projection  therefore  not  unlikely.  Afforestation  is  a  CO2  sink  that  is  continuously 
increasing  over  the  period.  In  2050  the  net  sink  from  afforestation  is more  than  150 
Mt  CO2.  The  activity  contributing  the  largest  share  to  net  LULUCF  emissions  is  forest 
management.  Figure  21  also  shows  that  the  Forest  management  sink  for  EU28  is 
declining from more than -300 Mt CO2 to about -100 Mt CO2 in 2050. Forest aging and 
increased  harvest  is  responsible  for  this  trend.  Forest  management  emissions  (i.e. 
reduced  sink)  estimated  in  the  projection  are  driven  by  the  balance  of  harvest 
removals and forest increment rates (the growth of the biomass stored in a forest as a 
result  of  the  growth  of  the  trees  with  the  age).  Other  land  use  change  includes 
cropland  and  grazing  land  management  and  conversions  between  them.  Removals 
(e.g. from grazing land management) are balancing emissions (e.g. from cropland) in 
this category. 

Figure  22a  compares  estimates  of  emissions  and  removals  from  LULUCF  and 
agriculture  with  UNFCCC  reported  data  for  two  years  in  the  period  where  both 
datasets  are  overlapping  (2000  and  2010).  This  study  shows  lower  removals  from 
afforestation,  which  is  due  to  the  fact  that  only  forests  afforested  after  2000  can  be 
considered.  UNFCCC  instead  includes  older  afforestation  areas  in  its  category  "land 
converted to forest land". Deforestation estimates by the model are lower in 2000 and 
higher  in  2010  compared  to  reported  data.  It  is  difficult  to  calibrate  the  model  to 
historic  rates.  Deforestation  drivers  are  different  for  different  regions.  A  good 
agreement of the average over 2000-2010 is therefore deemed sufficient. The level of 
forest  management  net  removals  estimated  by  the  models  is  similar  to  the  sink 
reported  by  EU  countries.  However,  while  reported  data  show  that  the  sink  is  rather 
stable  between  2000  and  2010,  the  model  estimates  have  a  clear  downward  trend. 
Reported  data  are  continuously  revised  by  Member  States  whenever  new  data  are 
available  (e.g.  new  forest  inventory  information).  Therefore  the  comparison  can  lead 
to a different result at a different point in time. Still it has to be noted that the forest 
sink might be underestimated by the model compared to reported data. 

Differences  between  land  use  change  emissions  (other  than  deforestation)  and 
agriculture emissions that turn out to be large are due to including different pools and 
activities  making  a  direct  comparison  at  this  level  of  aggregation  difficult  (see  also 
Box 1 on comparison with EU Reference projection). 

May 2016 29 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  22:  Comparison  of  EU28  emissions  estimated  in  this  study  with 
reported (2014) emissions and removals from UNFCCC reporting (JRC AFOLU 
tool-historical  data  2014)  and  projected  data  from  the  2013  EU  Reference 
scenario. 

May 2016 30 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Box 1: Comparison of EU28 LULUCF and Agriculture GHG projections 
The  comparison  of  projected  land  use  GHG  emissions  for  EU28  can  be  compared  to  other  recent 
projections. A comparison with the projection published with the European Commission Trends to 2050 
Report (EC, 2014) that describes the EU Reference scenario projection 2013 can be useful to enable as 
much  as  possible  consistency  between  projections  presented  in  this  report  and  the  EU  Reference 
scenario 2013 but also clearly state differences. 

A  core  element  of  the  EU  Reference  scenario is  what  Member  States intend  to include  in  their  energy 
systems,  notably,  the  level  of  bioenergy  they  plan  to  use.  The  projection  further  includes  all  binding 
targets  set  out  in  EU  legislation  regarding  development  of  renewable  energies  and  reductions  of 
greenhouse  gas  emissions,  as  well  as  the  latest  legislation  promoting  energy  efficiency.  Regarding 
LULUCF the scenario considers demand for bioenergy, wood, food and feed as well as land use policies 
up to 2012. 

A comparison of the Baseline scenario projection from this study and the EU Reference projection for the 
years 2030 and 2050 is provided in Figure 22b. The level of net LULUCF emissions of both projections is 
farirly similar for both years. Both used the GLOBIOM/G4M models, however, it should be noted that a 
number of project specific updates of the two models has been done for this project and not the same 
input data is being used (for an elaboration of the scenario specifications see the Task 3 report). The EU 
Reference expects a sink of  -214 Mt CO2 in 2030, this study estimates the sink to amount  -204 Mt CO 
CO2. However, trends to 2050 are different. While the EU Reference sees a decline to -196 Mt CO2, this 
study  projects  an  increase  to  -245 Mt  CO2.  The  reasons  are  in  differences  between  the  pools  and 
subcategories covered, differences in input data, but also in different emission and removal estimates for 
subcategories. For example are removals from afforestation in this study expected to be higher in 2050 (-
156 Mt CO2 compared to -130 Mt CO2) related to a higer estimate of future prices of wood commodities. 
In 2030 both studies still agree very reasonably (-87 and -94 Mt CO2). Another difference is the estimate 
of  the  sink  from  Forest  management  in  2050.  While  also  for  this  category  in  2030  levels  seem  to 
correspond  (-137  and  -126 Mt  CO2)  this  study  sees  a  much  stronger  sink  in  2050  (-77  compared  to  -
24 Mt CO2), directly related to a lower harvest level in the Baseline scenario of this study. Other LULUCF 
categories  are  very  small  and  therefore  relative  difference  large.  Here  differences  might  occur  due  to 
different activities considered. 

Emissions from Agriculture are systematically lower in this study for both years. Differences are difficult to 
assess without looking at driver data and emissions factors, which goes beyond the scope of this study. It 
also has to be noted that the projection of Agriculture GHG emissions for the EU Reference scenario is 
based on the GAINS model. Due to the fact that the projections of Agriculture GHG emissions from this 
study are not calibrated to historic UNFCCC data, different methods are applied and different emission 
sources are covered by the models, differences are quite natural. 

May 2016 31 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

3.2.  Comparison of impacts in Baseline and policy scenarios 

3.2.1.  Overview of impacts 

More  than  100  model  variables  related  to  about  a  dozen  environmental  indicators 
were  initially  defined  and  selected  from  GLOBIOM/G4M  model  output.  All  variables 
were  screened  and  their  relative  and  absolute  changes  over  time  and  across  policy 
scenarios  calculated.  In  this  first  screening  step  general  patterns  and  trends  and 
differences between scenarios are supposed to be detected. 

The  following  general  observations  can  be  made.  Impacts  on  variables  for  EU28 
related  to  biodiversity  tend  to  be  most  affected  in  terms  of  relative  changes  as  their 
spread  is  largest  (see  Figure  23  and  Figure  24).  But  also  GHG  and  land  impacts  are 
large and range between 30 to -20% and 10 to -40%, respectively. Water impacts are 
relatively  small  but  also  much  fewer  variables  were  included.  Impacts  are  increasing 
over time (compare Figure 23 for year 2030 and Figure 24 for year 2050). Deviations 
from  the  Baseline  scenario  are  smaller  for  the  RoW  (compare  a)  and  b)  of  the 
respective  figures).  Sticking  out  in  RoW  is  the  scenario  simulating  an  increased 
demand  for  bioenergy  in  RoW.  There  is  none  of  the  scenarios  clearly  sticking  out  for 
EU28. 

May 2016 32 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 23: Distribution of relative differences between Baseline and different 
policy scenarios for a) 2030 and b) 2050 for grouped variables for EU28. 

May 2016 33 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 24: Distribution of relative differences between Baseline and different 
policy scenarios for a) 2030 and b) 2050 for grouped variables for the RoW. 

May 2016 34 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

3.2.2.  Impacts on land use 

In the following, impacts of the policy scenarios compared to the Baseline on land-use 
patterns are analyzed in more detail. In a first step the land use categories cropland, 
grazing land, forest (used and unused), and other natural land are covered. Secondly, 
results of land use shifts within the category forest are presented.  

To  enable  readers  to  digest  the  data  on  differences  of  an  indicator  between  Baseline 
and policy scenario and different years the results are presented in a figure including 
all  relevant  information  at  once.  The  figures  include  a  graph  a)  that  describes  the 
development of the variable over time for different elements in the Baseline scenario. 
The  trend  from  2010  to  2030  and  2050  is  summarized  in  a  bar  chart  b).  Finally 
differences  in  the  policy  scenarios  compared  to  the  Baseline  for  the  years  2030  and 
2050  are  presented  (figure  c)).  This  presentation  helps  to  evaluate  the  differences 
between scenarios against the background trends of the Baseline and also to point to 
changes  in  the  magnitude  and  sign  of  impacts  compared  to  the  baseline  over  time. 
The  figures  showing  areas  present  the  increase  (positive  values)  and  decrease 
(negative  values)  of  a  land  use  category  in  comparison  to  the  baseline.  The  figures 
cover all areas and changes. This is why the sum of area increases and decreases are 
balancing  and  positive  and  negative  bars  have  the  same  size.  Figure  25  shows 
differences  identified  for  land  use  types  within  the  EU28.  In  total,  in  EU28  the 
development  of  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  demand  scenario  and  Increased  EU 
imports  scenario  are  contrary  to  the  development  of  the  other  two  policy  scenarios. 
Compared  to  the  Baseline  scenario,  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  demand 
scenario  leads  to  a  lower  amount  of  SRC  area  and  higher  amounts  of  other 
natural  land  (including  abandoned  cropland  and  grazing  land)  and  grazing  land 
(2030  and  2050).  While  the  total  forest  area  (sum  of  used  and  unused  forest)  does 
not  differ  between  the  two  scenarios  too  much,  there  are  comparably  large  shifts 
within the forest leaving more used forest unused. 

For the policy scenarios demanding higher shares of domestic biomass, differences to 
the  Baseline  scenario  become  evident  only  after  2030.  Grazing  land  area  and  other 
natural land decline, whereas  SRC area increases  compared to the  Baseline scenario. 
Dominating, however, is in these scenarios the shift from unused forest to used forest 
compared to the Baseline (Figure 25). 

It  is  striking  that  some  changes  in  the  Baseline  scenario  override  changes  across 
scenarios  for  SRC,  cropland  and  other  natural  land.  This  does  not  hold  for  grazing 
lands  that  are  hardly  affected  under  the  Baseline  scenario  but  show  up  to  undergo 
losses until 2050 in those policy scenarios that assume increased biomass demand. 

May 2016 35 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  25:  Projected  land  use  changes  for  EU28  a)  in  the  baseline,  b)  in  the 
baseline  between  2010  and  2030/2050  and  c)  in  different  scenarios  and 
years compared to the baseline. 

From  a  global  perspective  (RoW),  land  use  patterns  in  the  Increased  RoW 
bioenergy  demand  scenario  differ  most  from  the  baseline  scenario,  especially  in  the 
year  2050.  Changes  in  the  other  three  policy  scenarios  seem  to  be  almost  not 
significant in this comparison (Figure 26). The impacts are related to the conversion of 
more unused  forest to  used forest and  conversion of other natural land and cropland 
to SRC. 

May 2016 36 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  26:  Projected  land  use  changes  for  RoW  a)  in  the  baseline,  b)  in  the 
baseline  between  2010  and  2030/2050  and  c)  in  different  scenarios  and 
years compared to the baseline. 

3.2.3.  Impacts on land with high biodiversity value 

Impacts  on  land  with  high  biodiversity  value  in  the  EU28  are  comparably  low  due  to 
the fact that only less than 0.3% of the total area in the EU28 is categorized as area 
of  high  biodiversity  value  according  to  the  global  biodiversity  data  set  from  UNEP-
WCMC. The Constant EU bioenergy demand scenario shows less afforestation of other 
natural  land  with  HBV  compared  to  the  Baseline.  The  other  three  policy  scenarios 
allocate more other natural land with HBV to new forests (Figure 27). The amount of 

May 2016 37 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

existing forest area with HBV is not affected at all, neither in the baseline scenario nor 
in policy scenarios. 

Figure  27:  Projected  changes  of  HBV  areas  in  EU28  a)  in  the  baseline,  b)  in 
the baseline between 2010 and 2030/2050 and c) in different  scenarios and 
years compared to the baseline. 

From  a  global  perspective  (RoW),  the  conversion  of  HBV  land  is  more  important 
because  the  data  from  UNEP-WCMC  identify  20%  of  the  global  land  area  as  highly 
biodiverse.  Figure  28  gives  the  distribution  of  these  1,850  Mha  on  different  land  use 
categories  in  2000.  Unused  forests  form  the  largest  share,  followed  by  other  natural 
land and grazing land. 

May 2016 38 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

The conversion of HBV land is not proportional to the initial distribution of HBV land in 
2000 as the land use categories are affected differently by conversion  under different 
scenarios.  But  it  is  proportional  to  the  impacts  on  the  overall  land  use  pattern  (see 
Figure 26). The land use  shifts affecting HBV land differ  most between the  Increased 
RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenario  and  the  Baseline  (Figure  29).  In  the  other  three 
policy  scenarios  other  natural  land  with  HBV  is  converted  less  intensively.  Effects  on 
forest  area  with  HBV  in  the  Increased  RoW  demand  scenario  show  that  used  forest 
area  is  increased,  unused  forest  and  also  afforestation  area  decreased  compared  to 
the Baseline. In addition cropland is increased, other natural land decreased. 

Figure 28: Distribution of areas with high biodiversity on land use categories 
for the RoW in 1000 ha (year 2000).  

May 2016 39 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  29:  Projected  changes  of  HBV  areas  in  RoW  a)  in  the  baseline,  b)  in 
the baseline between 2010 and 2030/2050 and c) in different  scenarios and 
years compared to the baseline. 

May 2016 40 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

3.2.4.  Impacts on GHG emissions from land use activities 

The  model  provides  a  number  of  variables  related  to  different  GHG  emission  sources 
and  activities.  Figure  30  displays  forestry  related  emissions  for  EU28.  It  was  already 
discussed  that  the  sink  from  forest  management  is  projected  to  decline  in  the 
Baseline.  Compared  to  this  Baseline,  forest  management  sink  is  declining 
more strongly in the long run in two policy scenarios with increased domestic 
biomass  production  (positive  bars  in  Figure  30).  In  2050  EU  emission  reduction 
scenario and Increased RoW demand scenario show decreased deforestation emissions 
that  are  compensating for  the  loss  of  the  forest  sink to  some  degree.  Also  emissions 
from  harvested  wood  products  decrease/the  sink  increases.  More  products  are  being 
produced  causing  the  stock  of  carbon  stored  in  wood  products  to  increase.  In  the 
Baseline  there  is  already  a  strong  increase  of  afforestation  removals  over  time. 
Comparatively small are effects on afforestation removals between policy scenarios. 

The scenarios are also affecting non- CO2 emissions (Figure 31). While impacts in 2030 
are  rather  limited,  stronger  effects  can  be  noted  for  2050,  especially  for  those 
scenarios  that  lead  to  an  increased  use  of  biomass  (be  it  imported  or  domestically 
sourced).  Only  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  scenario  results  in  increased  emissions 
compared  to  the  Baseline.  The  change  in  agriculture  emissions  can  mainly  be 
attributed  to  increased  livestock  production  related  to  an  increase  of  grazing  and 
cropping  land.  In  all  other  scenarios  emissions  from  livestock  and  fertilizer  input  are 
lower.  The  changes  in  livestock  emissions  can  be  attributed  to  reduced  bovine  milk 
and  meat  production  in  EU28,  a  result  of  decreased  grazing  land  area.  While  EU28 
production  of  these  food  and  feed  commodities  decrease  in  these  scenarios,  EU28 
consumption is stable but to a higher degree relying on imports. Figure 31 also shows: 
differences  between  scenarios  are  smaller  than  the  changes  in  the  Baseline  scenario 
between  2010  and  2030/2050.  Figure  32  summarizes  all  GHGs  and  presents  net 
LULUCF and Agriculture sector emissions. It is striking that compared to the Baseline 
all  scenarios  are  reducing  net  emissions  from  LULUCF  (between  5  and  18 Mt  CO2eq). 
Agriculture  emissions  are  higher  for  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  scenario  but  fully 
compensated by LULUCF CO2 emission reductions. 

Figure 33 and Figure 34 present changes in emissions from these two sectors for the 
RoW.  Also  here  impacts  become  stronger  over  time.  Hardly  any  differences  can  be 
noted  when  comparing  forest  management  emissions  with  the  Baseline  across 
scenarios  in  2030.  All  scenarios  show  a  decreased  sink  (positive  bars)  in  that  year. 
Striking  is  the  result  for  the  Increased  RoW  demand  scenario.  In  2050  more  than 
140 Mt  CO2  are  emitted  more  from  forest  management  in  this  scenario  compared  to 
the  Baseline.  This  is  contrasted  by  reduced  emissions  from  deforestation  of  about 
40 Mt CO2. 

Livestock and other non-CO2 emissions are not reacting consistently across  scenarios 
compared to the Baseline (Figure 34). The strong reduction of livestock related GHG in 
2050  in  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenario  is  reflecting  the  increased 
competition  between  beef  and  milk  production  and  bioenergy.  Also  for  the  RoW  total 
net LULUCF and Agriculture emissions can be compared (Figure 35).  

May 2016 41 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 30: Projected Changes in forestry CO2 emission and removals in EU28 
a) in the baseline, b) in the baseline between 2010 and 2030/2050 and c) in 
different scenarios and years compared to the baseline. 

May 2016 42 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 31: Projected changes in non-CO2 land use emission in EU28 a) in the 
baseline, b) in the baseline between 2010 and 2030/2050 and c) in different 
scenarios and years compared to the baseline. 

May 2016 43 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  32:  Projected  changes  in  net  LULUCF  emissions  and  removals  and 
Agriculture  emissions in  EU28  a)  in  the baseline,  b)  in  the  baseline between 
2010 and 2030/2050 and c) in different scenarios and years compared to the 
baseline. 

May 2016 44 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  33:  Projected  Changes  in  forestry  CO2  emission  and  removals  in  RoW 
a) in the baseline, b) in the baseline between 2010 and 2030/2050 and c) in 
different scenarios and years compared to the baseline. 

May 2016 45 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  34:  Projected  changes in  non-CO2  land  use  emission  in  RoW  a)  in  the 
baseline, b) in the baseline between 2010 and 2030/2050 and c) in different 
scenarios and years compared to the baseline. 

May 2016 46 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  35:  Projected  changes  in  net  LULUCF  emissions  and  removals, 
Agriculture emissions and biofuel savings in RoW a) in the baseline, b) in the 
baseline  between  2010  and  2030/2050  and  c)  in  different  scenarios  and 
years compared to the baseline. 

3.2.5.  Impacts on the EU Forest management sink 

The policy scenarios differ from the Baseline by assuming different production and use 
of  forest  biomass.  This  changes  also  the  levels  of  harvest  in  these  scenarios.  If  the 
forest  increment  remains  largely  unchanged  (one  could  assume  forest  fertilization, 
change in species etc.), increased harvest levels directly impact the carbon balance of 
forests. More export of carbon through harvest means that the net sink of a forest is 
reduced  or  the  net  source  increased.  Figure  36  compares  harvest  from  forest 
management  (excluding  a  small  amount  of  wood  harvested  from  deforestation)  and 
forest  sink  development  for  EU28.  Harvest  levels  increase  for  EU28  at  a  level  of  470 

May 2016 47 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Mm3  in  2000  (lower  left  side  of  the  panel).  Harvest  levels  in  2050  range  from 
519 Mm3 to 615 Mm3. What Figure 36 shows is the response of the EU forest carbon 
balance  to  changes  in  future  harvest  levels.  The  development  of  the  relationship 
between  harvested  volume  and  carbon  sink  is  very  similar  for  the  scenarios.  In  all 
scenarios  the  sink  is  declining,  most  strongly  in  the  scenario  of  Increased  RoW 
bioenergy demand, from -232 Mt CO2 in 2010 to -109 Mt CO2 (Constant EU bioenergy 
demand)  and  -51 Mt  CO2  (Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand).  The  response  of  the 
sink  is  thus  quite  symmetrical:  the  scenario  with  the  lowest  harvest  level  after  2020 
(Baseline) results in the strongest sink. Increased EU biomass import and Constant EU 
bioenergy  demand  scenarios  both  cause  the  sink  to  be  10-20 Mt  CO2  smaller  than in 
the  Baseline.  About  100 Mm3  more  are  harvested  in  2050  under  the  EU  emission 
reduction scenario compared to the Baseline, decreasing the sink by about 50 Mt CO2. 

Figure 36: Relationship between the EU28 forest harvest levels and the forest 
carbon  sink  in  baseline  and  policy  scenarios.  Harvest  volume  includes  only 
stem  wood  harvested  from  managed  forests  and  does  neither  include  bark 
nor forest residues. 

Figure  37  puts  additional  harvest  volume  compared  to  the  Baseline  in  relation  to 
caused  decline  in  the  sink.  Across  the  scenarios  the  impacts  per  m3  are  similar, 
stressing  again  the  symmetry  of  the  sink  response.  The  impacts  are  different, 
however, for different years. The ratio of harvest volume to sink strength in 2050 is 5-
50% smaller than in 2030. This is due to the fact that the average age of EU forests is 
higher  in  2050.  Older  trees  take  up  less  carbon.  Leaving  the  trees  growing  in  the 
forest (this is the alternative to harvest) therefore causes less of a sink reduction. 

May 2016 48 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 37: Impact of increased harvest on the EU28 forest sink relative to the 
baseline  scenario  (=1.0).  The  difference  to  the  sink  in  the  baseline  scenario 
in Mt CO2 is divided by the additionally harvested volume from forests in Mm3 
compared  to  the  baseline.  This  results  in  the  sink  reduction  per  additionally 
harvested m3. 

Besides harvest levels, another measure for forest management intensity given out by 
the model is the rotation time. This is the average age at which trees are harvested. 
When  wood  demand  is  low,  trees  are  harvested  rather  late,  leading  to  an  increased 
average  forest  age  and  also  a  reduction  of  the  average  increment  of  forests.  When 
production  is  increased  the  rotation length is  automatically  shortened.  This  can,  as  a 
response,  also  increase  the  increment  of  the  forest  because  more  young  trees  exist 
that  have  higher  growth  rates.  Figure  38  displays  the  difference  of  average  rotation 
time  in  the  policy  scenarios  compared  to  the  Baseline.  Symmetrically,  the  scenario 
with  highest  harvest  rates  also  shows  the  shortest  rotation  time.  Compared  to  the 
Baseline scenario, Constant EU bioenergy demand scenario and Increased EU biomass 
import scenario show longer rotations. Here management intensity is reduced. 

The  reduction  of  the  rotation  time  in  the  other  scenarios  compared  to  the  Baseline 
might  result  in  higher  productivity  of  the  forest.  It  causes,  however,  also  the  loss  of 
habitat for many species depending on large dimension trees, old tree age classes and 
dead  wood.  Without  being  able  to  explicitly  model  the  loss  of  habitat,  the  average 
rotation  time  can  serve  as  a  proxy  for  the  availability  of  old  trees  and  habitat  for 
species  depending  on  them.  Largest  impacts  would  therefore  be  expected  from  the 
Increased RoW demand scenario on EU forests, causing average rotation time to drop 
by 4% in 2050. Similar impacts are expected for the EU emission reduction scenario. 

May 2016 49 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  38:  Comparison  of  forestry  rotation  length  in  policy  scenarios  with 
Baseline. 

May 2016 50 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

4.  Results  of  Stage  2:  Exploring 

implications  of 
environmental  constraints  for  biomass  resource 
efficiency 

4.1.  Important environmental impacts found in Stage 1 and the 

implementation of specific constraints to reduce impacts 

The  analysis  of  environmental  impacts  in  Stage  1  of  the  analysis  revealed  that  a 
number  of  indicators  show  significant  changes  across  scenarios.  Only  a  very  limited 
number  of  indicators  can  technically  be  converted  into  environmental  constraints.  In 
the  following  we  summarize  the  performance  of  three  selected  indicators  across 
scenarios and their use as environmental constraints. 

4.1.1.  Conversion of areas of High Biodiversity Value (HBV) 

Areas with HBV can be identified by using existing maps of biodiversity hotspots (see 
Section  2.1  on  the  definition  of  indicators).  Most  of  the  HBV  areas  as  defined  in  this 
project  are  located  outside  EU28,  where  also  most  of  the  conversion  is  expected 
(about  7 Mha  until  2050  in  the  Baseline  for  RoW),  as  also  seen  across  the  policy 
scenarios  (between  1-9 Mha).  We  investigate  the  implications  of  avoiding  the 
conversion of any of these areas by  constraining land conversion for  HBV areas. This 
will  have  an  impact  on  overall  land  availability  for  conversion  and  therefore  have  an 
impact on other model variables when constrained. 

Areas defined as HBV are excluded from any land conversion above the developments 
seen  in  the  baseline.  The  initial  land  use  of  such  areas  (in  the  year  2010)  is  not 
allowed to change through land conversion. However, the land might still contribute to 
sustainable production. For example HBV forest area will remain forest and (if actively 
managed in the year 2010) can supply biomass but cannot be converted to cropland. 
For  some  key  biotopes,  this  assumption  may  be  too  lenient  as  they  require  no 
disturbances  in  an  area,  however,  for  other  biotopes,  a  continued  active  and 
sustainable management is key for providing a suitable environment. The constraint is 
to  be  applied  globally.  It  has  to  be  noted  that  only  a  small  amount  of  areas  are 
classified as HBV within EU28. 

The  implementation  of  such  a  constraint  will  lead  to  more  intensification  of 
management in all land use categories on lands not considered of HBV. The import of 
biomass sources to the EU is expected to decrease as a large share of forests outside 
EU  cannot  anymore  be  used  for  production  of  biomass  feedstocks  as  in  the  Baseline 
scenario. 

4.1.2.  Area of unused forest converted to used forest 

The  indicators  'used'  and  'unused'  forest  area  and  the  conversion  between  both  are 
among  those  indicators  that  show  significant  differences  between  scenarios  both  for 
EU28 and for the RoW. Between 2010 and 2050, in the baseline in EU28, 5.6 Mha of 
forest are converted from unused to used (11.7% of unused forests in 2010). Across 
scenarios, the differences in 2050 are between -4.8 and +5.2 Mha in EU. For the RoW, 
the largest change in the indicator among policy scenarios as compared to baseline is 
80 Mha in 2050 (3.6% of unused forests in 2010). As a comparison, the change in the 
baseline between 2010 and 2050 for RoW is 253 Mha (10%). 

This  indicator  is  a  good  proxy  for  assessing  changes  in  the  intensity  of  forest 
management due to increased biomass demand. Technically, the area of unused forest 
can rather easily be constrained to the same developments as in the Baseline. For the 

May 2016 51 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

constrained  scenario,  the  model  will  not  be  allowed  to  convert  unused  forest  to  used 
forest  above  the  level  as  observed  in  the  Baseline  scenario  in  EU.  The  constraint  is 
applied for each MS within the EU. No constraint is imposed for the RoW. 

It is expected that the constraint will lead to 'used forest' within EU being used more 
intensively to fulfill increasing wood demand. Also, imports of biomass are expected to 
increase significantly. 

4.1.3.  Conversion of other natural land 

In  the  Baseline  scenario  in  EU28,  about  40%  of  "other  natural  land"  (25 Mha)  is 
converted between 2010 and 2050; in the RoW, it is 500 Mha (-17%). Other natural 
land consists of various types of land that are not very homogenous (a mixture of land 
that  cannot  be  properly  classified  such  as  unused  cropland  (if  not  fallow)  or  unused 
grassland,  including  natural  grasslands).  Across  scenarios  differences  for  EU28  are 
between  +1.9  and  -2.9 Mha  compared  to  the  baseline  in  2050  (5.5%  to  -8.4%),  for 
the RoW differences are up to -30 Mha (-1.2%). 

For the implementation into the model as a constraint no conversion of this category 
to any other land use beyond baseline levels is allowed. One exception from this rule 
is that the land can be converted to afforestation. The constraint is applied to EU28. It 
is  expected  to  lead  to  an  intensification  of  management  of  remaining  land  and  more 
conversion of other land use categories. 

4.2.  Exploring  implications  of  single  constraints  for  biomass 

resource efficiency in the EU Emission reduction scenario 

4.2.1.  Implications for production of biomass in EU 

As  stated  earlier,  land  of  HBV  is  mostly  located  outside  EU.  Nevertheless  there  are 
implications  for  biomass  production  for  EU28  when  a  constraint  on  HBV  is 
implemented:  sawlogs  harvest  increases  in  EU  by  5  Mm3  in  2030,  and  by  20 Mm3  in 
2050  (see  Figure  39)  in  the  HBV  constrained  scenario  as  compared  to  the 
unconstrained  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario,  where  272 Mm3  and  315 Mm3  of 
sawlogs  are  harvested  respectively.  At  the  same  time,  less  pulpwood  is  harvested  in 
EU28.  

If forests in EU28 are protected from further intensification (i.e. conversion of unused 
forest into used forest), in 2050 both harvest of sawlogs and pulp logs is significantly 
reduced  by  in  total  almost  60  Mm3.  A  relatively  large  share  (about  30%)  is 
compensated by the increased production of wood from SRC for bioenergy production. 

An  opposite  effect  can  be  observed  if  other  natural  land  in  EU  is  protected  from 
conversion:  There  is  less  SRC  biomass  production  in  EU  that  would  be  typically 
established on these lands (abandoned cropland and grazing land). At the same time, 
a small increase in the harvest of pulpwood occurs to  compensate for the decreasing 
availability of SRC.  

May 2016 52 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  39:  Change  in  biomass production  in  EU  across  constrained  scenarios 
compared to the (unconstrained) EU Emission reduction scenario. 

4.2.2.  Implications for trade of biomass 

Changes in EU biomass production that can be observed across the three constrained 
scenarios have implications for biomass trade between EU28 and RoW. The protection 
of HBV land leads to decreased EU net-imports of sawlogs and pulpwood, wood pellets 
and industrial by-products in 2050 (see Figure 40) as the constraint has a high effect 
on  land  use  outside  EU28.  At  the  same  time,  the  constraint  leads  to  increasing  net-
export  of  sawnwood  from  EU28  to  RoW  and  a  small  decrease  in  the  net-import  of 
chemical  pulp.  The  export  of  sawnwood  from  EU28  to  RoW  increases  by  2 Mm3  in 
2030,  and  by  9 Mm3  in  2050  (compared  to  18 Mm3  and  29 Mm3,  respectively,  in  the 
EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  without  restrictions).  This  increase  in  export  of 
sawnwood from EU28 is directly related to the reduced availability of biomass sources 
in regions with high shares of HBV areas, which in turn decreases the competitiveness 
of the forest based industries within these regions. 

Constraining  either  land  use  change  from  unused  forest  to  used  forest  or  the 
conversion  of  other  natural  land  to  cropland  or  grazing  land  causes  an  increased 
import  of  raw  biomass  sources  to  increase  in  2050.  This  is  especially  true  for  wood 
pellets  of  which  more  than  16 Mm3  (in  the  case  of  protection  of  unused  forest)  or 
3 Mm3  (protection  of  other  natural  land)  more  imports  are  expected  (compared  to 
52 Mm3  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  without  restrictions).  The  increase  in 
EU28  import  of  wood  pellets  is  mostly  expected  to  enhance  the  trade  with  USA, 
Canada,  and  the  former  Soviet  Union.  In  the  case  of  constraining  land  use  change 
from  unused  forest  to  used  forest,  the  net-import  to  EU28  of  sawlogs  and  pulpwood 
also  increases  to  satisfy  the  domestic  demand  of  wood  for  material  purposes.  The 
main  trade  partners  for  the  roundwood  is  the  former  Soviet  Union,  thereby 
strengthening the trade of wood between EU and the former Soviet Union even further 
than that of current levels.  

In terms of trade of sawnwood and chemical pulp, constraining the conversion of other 
natural  land  to  cropland  or  grazing  land  is  noted  to  have  a  minor  impact  on  the  net 

May 2016 53 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

trade both in 2030 and 2050.  On the other hand, constraining land use  change  from 
unused  forest  to  used  forest  is  found  to  decrease  the  net-export  of  sawnwood  and 
slightly  increase  the  net-import  of  chemical  pulp.  This  is  directly  related  to  the 
decrease  in  availably  of  raw  biomass  sources  within  EU28  which  cannot  economically 
be fully compensated by an increase in import of roundwood. 

Figure 40: Change in EU net trade across constrained scenarios compared to 
the EU Emission reduction scenario. 

4.2.3.  Implications for biomass use 

Besides  increased  imports  and  decreased  export,  another  response  to  reduced 
availability  of  biomass  in  the  constrained  scenarios  is  reduced  consumption  of  semi-
finished  products  and  changes  in  the  compositional  use  of  biomass  for  material  and 
energy  purposes.  The  intensity  of  reduction  of  biomass  consumption  depends  on  the 
impacts  of  price  changes  and  price  elasticities  used  to  represent  consumers’ 
willingness  to  pay  for  products.  Change  in  biomass  sources  used  for  material  and 
energy  purposes,  when  technically  feasible,  is  driven  by  changes  in  the  market  price 
of  feedstocks  and  industries  capabilities  to  pay  for  feedstocks.  Figure  41  presents 
effects  of  the  implemented  constraints  on  domestic  production  of  semi-finished  wood 
products and biomass use for material and energy use. 

The  global  constraint  on  HBV  area  conversion  increases  the  competitiveness  of 
sawnwood  produced  within  EU28,  through  the  reduced  availability  of  biomass  in 
regions  with  high  shares  of  HBV  areas.  EU28  production  of  sawnwood  increases  by 
2 Mm3  in  2030  and  by  9 Mm3  in  2050  (compared  to  131  Mm3  and  155  Mm3, 
respectively, in the EU Emission Reduction scenario without restrictions). This is shown 
in  Figure  41a  as  an  increased  use  of  sawlogs  for  material:  the  increase  is  almost 
5 Mm3 in 2030, and 18 Mm3 in 2050. All of this increase in production is exported from 
the  EU28  to  the  RoW  (see  Figure  40).  Conversely,  EU  production  of  pulpwood 
decreases marginally: the use of pulpwood for material decreases by about 0.5 Mm3 in 

May 2016 54 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

2050  for  the  domestic  market  (Figure  41a).  This  can  be  attributed  to  the  increase  in 
availability of industrial by-products from sawmills. 

If unused forest conversion is constrained, the use of sawlogs, pulpwood and industrial 
by-products  decreases  as  prices  for  logs  increase  with  reduced  availability  from 
domestic sources. Of the forest based industries, the scarcity of biomass feedstock is 
most  strongly  impacting  the  use  of  sawlogs  for  material,  which  decrease  by  almost 
15 Mm3 in 2050. The use of pulpwood for material also decreases by about 7 Mm3 in 
2050 (Figure 41a). 

Hardly  any  effect  can  be  observed  on  material  use  of  wood  if  constraints  of  the 
conversion  of  other  natural  land  are  introduced  as  this  does  not  directly  impact  the 
availability  of  wood  for  material  purposes.  A  small  decrease  can  be  observed  in  the 
use of pulp wood for material, related to the increasing use of roundwood for  energy 
(Figure 41a). 

In  terms  of  the  response  to  the  constraints  in  energy  use  of  biomass,  it  should  be 
noted that the total demand of bioenergy is  completely inelastic.  In  other words, the 
total demand of biomass for energy purposes is not impacted by changes in prices of 
feedstocks.  This  is  a  model  assumption  where  the  given  bioenergy  demand  from 
PRIMES  always  must  be  fulfilled.  Therefore  in  total  the  volume  of  biomass  used  for 
energy  does  not  change.  However,  the  compositional  use  of  biomass  for  energy  is 
price elastic so that the cheapest biomass resources will always be used before more 
expensive resources are used. 

A shift in the use of wood can be observed for all constraints, both driven by changes 
in  availability  of  raw  biomass  sources,  availability  of  industrial  by-products,  and 
changes in the prices of feedstocks (Figure 41b). What can be observed is that more 
industrial  by-products  are  used  for  energy 
if 
constraints on HBV land apply. This is directly driven by the increasing availability 
of  wood  chips  from  sawnwood  production.  In  the  case  when  EU  unused  forest  is 
prevented from conversion beyond the Baseline development, more imported 
pellets and SRC wood is used instead of roundwood for energy, directly driven 
by the increasing scarcity of forest biomass resources within EU28. Pellet imports also 
increase  (but  much  less)  if  the  conversion  of  other  natural  land  is  not  allowed;  SRC 
wood imports are reduced, instead. 

instead  of  roundwood 

a) 

b) 

May 2016 55 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 41: Change in biomass use in EU for a) material use and b) energy use 
across  constrained  scenarios  compared  to  the  EU  Emission  reduction 
scenario. 

4.2.4.  Implications for land use in EU and the RoW 

If  land  of  HBV  is  protected  from  being  converted,  areas  that  are  not  protected 
experience higher pressure for biomass production. This leads, in EU, to an increased 
conversion  of  unused  forest  to  used  forest,  i.e.  an  intensification  of  forest 
management on areas that are not considered of HBV (see Figure 42). 

A constraint on the conversion of unused forest in EU prevents intensification in forest 
management  compared  to  the  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario.  But  also  other  land 
areas  are  affected.  At  the  expense  of  grazing  land,  cropland  and  other  natural  land, 
SRC  production  in  EU28  is  expanded  in  2050  to  compensate  for  reduced  biomass 
supply  from  EU  forests.  A  constraint  on  the  conversion  of  other  natural  land  would 
result in  a  total  forest  area  in  EU28  that  is  almost  2  Mha  larger  compared  to  the  EU 
emission  reduction  scenario  but  also  compared  to  other  constrained  scenarios  where 
total forest area is less affected. 

Land  use  in  RoW  is  mostly  affected  by  the  constraint  that  targets  HBV  areas,  which 
are mostly located outside EU (see Figure 43). Already in 2030 this leads to a relative 
reduction of cropland area compared to the EU Emission reduction scenario and leaves 
more other natural vegetation but also grazing land unconverted. Forest area in RoW 
does  not  increase  in  the  constrained  scenario  of  HBV  conversion.  In  fact  the  net 
balance  (only  this  can  be  assessed  here)  shows  a  reduction  of  forest  area  in  the 
medium-term (in 2030). This is caused by an expansion of cropland and grazing land 
into lands that are less fertile than those areas protected by the constrained scenario. 
The effect of the constraint on used forests in RoW is not persistent over time. While 
in 2030 its area is increased (most likely at the expense of unused forest), in 2050 the 
area of used forest decreases due to deforestation. 

There is a significant conversion of unused forest to used forest (more than 5 
forestry 
Mha) 
intensification within EU. The area affected is of a similar size compared to the area 
prevented from conversion in EU (cf. Figure 42). 

is  accompanied  with  constraining 

in  the  RoW  that 

May 2016 56 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  42:  EU  land  use  in  the  EU  emission  reduction  scenario  (a)  and 
implications of single environmental constraints (b). 

Figure  43:  RoW  land  use  in  the  EU  emission  reduction  scenario  (a)  and 
implications of single environmental constraints (b). 

4.2.5.  Implications for GHG emissions from the land use sector in EU and RoW 

Constraints  of  land  use  changes  regarding  areas  of  High  Biodiversity  Value,  unused 
forest  and  other  natural land  have  implications  for  GHG  emissions  from  the  land  use 
sector in EU (see Figure 44). If areas of HBV are excluded from conversion it can be 
observed that in EU28 forests are more intensively used and the carbon sink in those 
forests  is  reduced  compared  to  the  unconstrained  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario 
(shown  as  relatively  higher  emissions).  Emissions  from  Harvested  Wood  Products 

May 2016 57 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

(HWP)  are  reduced,  i.e.  the  sink  is  increased.  Emissions  from  deforestation  are  also 
reduced in EU. The net sum of forestry emissions under this constraint is negative (i.e. 
emissions  are  reduced,  about  -5  Mt  CO2  compared  to  the  EU  Emissions  reduction 
scenario in 2050). In 2050 all  constrained  scenarios yield lower  net emissions 
from  forestry  in  EU  compared  to  no  constraints.  The  effect  in  EU  is  the  largest 
when  unused  forests  are  protected  from  conversion  in  EU28  (-24  Mt  CO2).  Here  the 
largest contribution results from an increased sink in EU forests, compensated to some 
degree by increased emissions/a reduced sink from HWPs. Constraining conversion of 
natural land in EU28 reduces emissions from deforestation  in EU28. This is the result 
of EU28 forests becoming more valuable if other natural land is not available for wood 
production e.g. in SRC plantations. 

Figure  44:  EU  forestry  emissions  in  the  EU  emission  reduction  scenario  (a) 
and implications of single environmental constraints (b). 

The net balance of GHG emissions from forestry in RoW are displayed in Figure 45. In 
a  scenario  where  conversion  of  land  with  high  biodiversity  value  is  constrained, 
emissions from deforestation will be decreased by 3 and 17 Mt CO2 in 2030 and 2050. 
These  emission  reductions  compared  to  the  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario  are 
compensated  by  reduced  removals  from  afforestation.  Existing  forest  with  high 
biodiversity  value  is  protected  from  conversion  but  also  other  natural  land  and  other 
non-forest  land  use  classes  with  these  properties  are  not  any  more  available  for 
afforestation.  In  total,  net  forestry  emissions  increase  for  RoW  in  2050  if  HBV  areas 
are not converted, a clear trade-off. The effect on emissions from forest management 
is  less  consistent  over  time  and  reflects  more  shifts  of  management  intensity  and 
biomass  production  away  from  cropland  towards  managed  forests.  Increased  forest 
management  emissions  of  about  15 Mt  CO2  can  be  observed  in  2050  in  a  scenario 
where  unused  forests  in  EU28  are  not  available  for  intensification.  The  constraint  on 
other  natural  land, instead,  decreases  net  forestry  emissions  in  RoW  slightly in  2030 
and 2050. So the constraint on conversion of EU natural land reduces the net-
emissions from the forest sector both in EU and RoW. In all other constrained 
scenarios, the forestry GHG emissions impacts go in opposite directions in EU 
and RoW. 

May 2016 58 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure 45: RoW forestry emissions in the EU emission reduction scenario (a) 
and implications of single environmental constraints (b). 

Figure 46 describes changes of net GHG emissions from the land use sector  in EU28 
aggregated to total LULUCF (CO2) and total agriculture (non-CO2) emissions compared 
to  the  EU  Emission  reduction  scenario.  Changes  in  net  LULUCF  emissions  dominate 
changes across all scenarios and in all years. In the long-term, all constraints lead 
to net GHG emission reductions in EU. In 2050, net EU land use emissions would 
relatively  be  reduced  by  more  than  5 Mt  CO2  with  a  constraint  on  the  conversion  of 
HBV land, by more than 25 Mt CO2 with a constraint on unused European forests, and 
by  more  than  10 Mt  CO2  with  a  constraint  on  the  conversion  of  other  natural  land. 
Figure  47  shows  that  these  relative  emission  reductions  in  EU  are  associated 
with  increases  in  emissions  in  RoW  in  2050  in  the  case  of  a  scenario  where 
EU  forest  management  is  not  intensified  (unused  forest  constraint).  Other 
constraints  lead  to  net  GHG  emission  reduction  in  RoW.  This  is  especially  true 
for  constraints  on  HBV  areas  where  large  emission  reductions  compared  to  the 
reference  can  be  observed  for  agricultural  emissions.  This  is  due  to  a  reduction  in 
global  meat  and  milk  production  by  8 Mt  of  meat  and  2 Ml  of  milk,  (about  1-2%  of 
total production). As the conversion of HBV areas to grazing land for cattle is limited, 
prices for meat and milk increase compared to the unconstrained scenario. This effect 
is more pronounced in the RoW than in EU28. 

In  the  global  sum  of  net  land  use  emissions  (EU  +  RoW),  all  scenarios  with 
constraints  result  in  emission  reductions  compared  to  the  EU  Emission 
reduction  scenario  (Figure  48).  This  means  that  there  are  synergies  of 
constraints  to  protect  biodiversity,  unused  forests  and  other  natural  land 
from  conversion  regarding  global  net  GHG  emissions  from  the  land  use 
sector.  However,  there  are  regional  differences  (here  we  show  only  EU28  and  RoW) 
and the effect differs for LULUCF and agriculture emissions. 

May 2016 59 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  46:  EU  net  land  use  emissions  in  the  EU  emission  reduction  scenario 
(a) and implications of single environmental constraints (b). 

Figure 47: RoW net land use emissions in the EU emission reduction scenario 
(a) and implications of single environmental constraints (b). 

May 2016 60 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  48:  Global  net  land  use  emissions  in  the  EU  emission  reduction 
scenario (a) and implications of single environmental constraints (b). 

4.3.  Exploring implications of combined constraints for biomass 

resource efficiency across scenarios 

In  this  section,  we  analyze  the  implications  of  simultaneously  applying  all 
sustainability constraints (protecting HBV land, restricting conversion of unused forest 
into  used  forest  to  Baseline  level,  and  restricting  other  natural  land  conversion  to 
Baseline level) on the policy scenarios (cf. Figure 1, dimension 2). 

4.3.1.  Implications for production of biomass in EU 

As  shown  in  Figure  49,  the  effects  for  EU  are  relatively  minor  in  2030,  but  are 
considerably  amplified  by  2050,  especially  for  the  EU  emission  reduction  and 
Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenario.  For  the  EU  emission  reduction  scenario, 
applying  all  constraints  simultaneously  provides  overall  the  same  impact  on  the  EU 
forests  as  only  applying  the  unused  forest  constraint.  That  is,  the  combined 
sustainability constraints result in 2030 in a 2.4 Mm3 increase in sawlog harvests and 
a  2.7 Mm3  decrease  in  pulpwood  harvests.  In  2050,  the  sustainability  constraints 
would  result  in  a  total  reduction  of  57 Mm3  in  the  EU  biomass  harvests,  leading  into 
20 Mm3  more  SRC  demanded  to  satisfy  the  bioenergy  demand.  This  effect  of  the 
combined  sustainability  constraints  is  accentuated  in  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy 
demand  scenario,  where  the  bioenergy  demand  increases  globally,  putting  more 
pressure  to  increase  EU  harvests  already  without  constraints.  With  the  combined 
implementation  of  all  sustainability  constraints,  the  forest  harvests  within  the  EU 
would  be  decreased  by  70 Mm3  in  2050,  and  the  SRC  harvests  would  increase  by  29 
Mm3 – a considerable increase in a scenario where SRC is seen to grow into a major 
bioenergy  feedstock  already  in  the  original  scenario  (where  172 Mm3  of  SRC  and 
718 Mm3 total forest harvests in 2050; see Task 3 report for further details). 

The impacts of the sustainability constraints are more modest in the two other policy 
scenarios,  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  demand  and  the  Increased  EU  biomass  import 
scenarios. In these scenarios, sustainability constraints increase EU forest harvests in 
2050 by 9 Mm3 in the Constant EU bioenergy demand scenario, and by 10 Mm3 in the 
Increased  EU  biomass  import  scenario,  as  compared  to  the  same  scenario 
unconstrained.  The  main  reason  for  this  development  is  the  protection  of  HBV  areas 

May 2016 61 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

outside  of  the  EU:  when  no  conversion  is  allowed  for  these  areas,  the  EU  imports  of 
roundwood  will  decrease  (see  next  section)  and  harvest  pressure  in  the  domestic 
forests  is  increased.  In  these  two  scenarios,  the  harvest  levels  in  the  unconstrained 
scenarios  are  below  the  Baseline  scenario  harvest  level.  Hence  it  is  possible  to 
increase  the  harvests  to  some  extent,  and  still  fulfill  the  constraint  of  keeping  the 
conversion of unused forest at the level of the Baseline scenario. For the Increased EU 
biomass  import  scenario,  this  increase  is  not  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  demand  for 
bioenergy feedstocks within the EU: hence, also SRC production in 2050 increases by 
3.5 Mm3 compared to when no sustainability constraints are implemented. 

Figure  49:  Difference  in  EU  biomass  production  in  constrained  policy 
scenarios compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

4.3.2.  Implications for trade of biomass 

As  was  seen  already  for  single  sustainability  constraints,  changes  in  EU  biomass 
production  observed  across  the  constrained  scenarios  have  implications  for  biomass 
trade  between  EU28  and  RoW.  The  considerable  decrease  in  the  total  EU  forest 
harvests  in  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  and  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand 
scenarios  as  compared  to  their  unconstrained  cases  leads  to  increased  biomass  EU 
imports,  especially  imports  of  sawlogs,  pulpwood  and  wood  pellets  (Figure  50). 
Especially  for  the  EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario,  the  wood  pellets  imports  in  2050 
increase  by  almost  16 Mm3  when  all  sustainability  constraints  are  applied:  a  30% 
increase compared to the unconstrained scenario (Task 3 report). 

For  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenario,  the  increase  in  net  imports  of 
wood pellets is more modest than for the EU Emission Reduction scenario, but the EU 
sawlogs and pulpwood imports increase almost similarly to the EU Emission Reduction 
scenario:  an  11 Mm3  increase  compared  to  the  unconstrained  scenarios.  The  reason 
for  this  development  is  that  the  sustainability  constraints  reduce  heavily  the 
availability of industrial-quality roundwood in the EU by constraining the conversion of 
unused  forests.  However,  the  imported  pellets  are  sourced  from  outside  the  EU.  An 
increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand,  combined  with  decreased  availability  of  wood 
because  the  HBV  areas  are  not  allowed  to  be  used,  results  in  a  relatively  small 

May 2016 62 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

increase  in  the  EU  imports  of  wood  pellets  in  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand 
scenario compared to EU Emission Reduction scenario.  

The impacts on the wood biomass trade of the combined sustainability constraints are 
only minor for the Constant EU bioenergy demand scenario. However, in the Increased 
EU  biomass  import  scenario,  the  impacts  are  clearly  seen  already  in  2030,  and 
increased  further  in  2050.  For  the  Increased  EU  biomass  import  scenario,  the 
predominant impact of HBV area protection, affecting especially areas outside the EU, 
is  seen  clearly:  sawlogs,  pulpwood  and  EU  pellet  imports  decrease  considerably. 
Instead,  domestic  wood  harvests  are  increased,  as  seen  above.  In  this  scenario,  EU 
biomass  trade  was  encouraged  by  decreasing  the  trade  costs.  The  results  show  that 
the  impacts  of  such  incentives  will  clearly  have  a  more  limited  effect  if  sustainability 
constraints are applied for the sourcing of biomass. 

In  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  demand  and  Increased  EU  biomass  import  scenarios, 
the  sustainability  constraints  slightly  increase  EU  sawnwood  exports.  The  increase  is 
seen  in  2030  for  all  scenarios,  and  also  in  2050  -  especially  for  the  Constant  EU 
bioenergy demand scenario, where the  EU sawnwood  exports are  4 Mm3 larger when 
the sustainability constraints are applied. This is explained by a reduced availability of 
sawlogs outside of the EU, as most of the protected HBV areas are located outside the 
EU.  However,  in  2050  in  the  EU  emission  reduction  scenario  and  the  Increased  RoW 
bioenergy  demand  scenario,  EU  sawnwood  exports  are  smaller  than  in  the  scenarios 
without  sustainability  constraints.  The  difference  is  especially  large  in  the  Increased 
RoW bioenergy demand scenario, where the EU sawnwood  exports are almost  5 Mm3 
smaller  than  if  the  combined  sustainability  constraints  were  not  considered.  In  this 
scenario,  the  domestic  harvests  within  the  EU were  much  larger  than in  the  Baseline 
scenario.  Constraining conversion  of  unused  forests  to  Baseline level leads  to  a large 
reduction in harvests, which will cause a notable decrease of the possibilities to export 
sawnwood from the EU. 

May 2016 63 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  50:  Differences  in  net  trade  in  constrained  policy  scenarios compared 
to unconstrained scenarios. 

4.3.3.  Implications for biomass use 

In all policy scenarios, there is a small increase in the use of sawlogs for material by 
2030, driven by increased demand for EU sawnwood exports (Figure 51). However, as 
seen for trade, there is a difference between the scenarios in terms of the effects as of 
2050. In the EU Emission Reduction and Increased RoW bioenergy demand scenarios, 
the use of sawlogs is smaller in 2050 in the fully constrained scenarios as compared to 
the unconstrained ones, leading to considerably less sawnwood production in 2050. In 
addition,  for  these  two  scenarios  the  composition  of  biomass  use  for  material  and 
energy  purposes  is  changed,  with  more  SRC  and  imported  pellets  used  to  energy 
instead  of  domestic  roundwood  or  industrial  by-products.  In  the  Constant  EU 
bioenergy demand and the Increased EU biomass import scenarios, the use of sawlogs 
increases to some degree in 2050 instead.  

The  sustainability  constraints  decrease  the  availability  of  industrial  roundwood 
considerably on the material side, decreasing sawlog use for material by 7 Mm3 in the 
EU  Emission  Reduction  scenario  in  2050.  Pulpwood  use  for  material  use  decreases 
even more, 10 Mm3 in 2050. In addition, there is a reduction of more than 33 Mm3 in 
the  roundwood  used  directly  to  energy  in  2050;  this  is  a  reduction  of 42%  from  the 
unconstrained  EU  emission  reduction  scenario.  While  the  material  production  is  not 
constrained  in  the  model,  allowing  the  total  material  production  level  to  decrease, 
bioenergy  demand  was  fixed  so  that  it  needs  to  be  fulfilled.  As  the  sustainability 
constraints  reduce  availability  of  domestic  forest  biomass  for  bioenergy,  the 
constraints  are  seen  to  lead  to  increases  in  SRC  (20 Mm3,  or  12%  increase  to  EU 
Emission  Reduction  scenario  without  constraints  in  2050)  and  especially  imported 
wood  pellets  (16 Mm3,  or  31%  increase).  The  same  development  for  wood  pellets  is 
seen  also  in  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenario,  where  the  SRC 

May 2016 64 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

development is exacerbated following the relatively smaller potential to increase wood 
pellet imports. 

For  the  other  two  scenarios,  the  Constant  EU  bioenergy  demand  and  Increased  EU 
biomass import scenarios, the effects of sustainability indicators are negligible for use 
of wood biomass  for  energy production. However, contrary to EU Emission Reduction 
and  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenarios,  material  production  is  seen  to 
increase  in  Constant  EU  bioenergy  and  Increased  EU  biomass  import  scenarios  if 
sustainability  constraints  are  applied.  This  is  driven  by  the  increased  EU  exports  of 
sawnwood, which increase the use of sawlogs for material by 6.5 Mm3 in 2050 in the 
Constant  EU  bioenergy  demand  scenario  and  by  4 Mm3  in  2050  in  Increased  EU 
biomass import scenario. The increase in sawnwood exports is possible because of the 
originally lower harvest level in these scenarios compared to the Baseline. In the other 
two scenarios the harvest level was originally much higher than in the Baseline, which 
is why the constraints have a much stronger effect. 

Figure  51:  Differences  in  biomass use  for  a) material  use  and  b)  energy  use 
in constrained policy scenarios compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

4.3.4.  Implications for land use in EU and the RoW 

The  constraints  regarding  the  conversion  of  unused  forest,  other  natural  land  and 
areas of HBV have also implications for land use in EU and RoW (Figure 52 and Figure 
53). To assess the order of magnitude of  the impacts of these constraints, these two 
figures can be compared to Figure 25c and Figure 26c that show differences of policy 
scenarios against baseline. 

Overall,  across  all  scenarios,  the  constraints  have  largest  implications  for  the  area  of 
used and unused forests. However, these areas are affected in opposite directions.  In 
the  EU  emission  reduction  and  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenarios,  the 
application of the constraints leads to an increase of unused forest in EU by 5-6 Mha. 
This is because less unused forest is converted to used forest, but also due to reduced 
deforestation (compare light and dark green bars in Figure 52). 

May 2016 65 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

This effect is reversed when the constraints are applied to the Constant EU bioenergy 
demand  and  the  Increased  EU  biomass  import  scenarios.  In  both  cases,  the  area  of 
used  forest  increases.  This  is  only  to  some  degree  due  to  the  conversion  of  unused 
forest (which is constrained to Baseline levels) but rather due to afforestation. Indeed, 
when compared to the Baseline, the Constant EU bioenergy demand and Increased EU 
biomass import scenarios showed higher areas of unused forest in 2050, while for the 
other  two  scenarios  with  higher  domestic  biomass  production,  there  was  less  unused 
forest  (Figure  26c).  Therefore,  when  constraints  are  applied,  the  policy  scenarios 
resemble  more  the  Baseline  scenario,  meaning  that  unused  forest  area  increases  in 
the  EU  emissions  reduction  and  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenarios  and 
decreases in the other two. Across all scenarios, the set of constraints applied lead to 
a reduction in other natural land, which is converted to forests. It is striking that, for 
most  scenarios,  the  area  of  SRC  increases  until  2050  when  constraints  on 
environmental  sustainability  are  applied.  In  these  scenarios,  other  cropland  is 
reduced in 2050 if land use is constrained. An exception is the Constant EU bioenergy 
demand scenario.  

Figure  52:  Differences  in  EU  land  use  in  constrained  policy  scenarios 
compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

While the effect of constraints impacts land use in EU differently in different scenarios, 
the  constraints  have  a  very  similar  effect  on  all  scenarios  for  the  RoW,  which  is  also 
consistent  over  time  (Figure  53):  Grazing  land,  used  forest  and  other  natural 
land increase, mainly because they form large shares of HBV land. Also, there 
are  more  SRC  areas  when  the  constraints  are  applied  as  compared  to 
unconstrained  scenarios.  These  expansions  come  at  the  expense  of  cropland  and 
unused  forests.  It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  figure  shows  the  net  balance  of  area 
changes.  The  constraints  protect  productive  land  from  conversion.  The  land  that  can 
be converted is less fertile and therefore more grazing land has to be created on non-
HBV to compensate for the loss in productivity. Therefore the net balance of land use 
results in  more  grazing land under  constraints.  In  total,  the  areas  affected  are  about 

May 2016 66 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

40 Mha.  Especially  the  constraint  on  the  conversion  of  HBV  areas  is  relatively  strong 
as  it  constrains  any  land  conversion  of  HBV  land,  leading  to  implications  that  go 
beyond  the  actual  impacts  observed  in  stage  one  of  the  analysis  of  most  scenarios 
(around  10 Mha).  Therefore  there  are  rather  small  differences  between  scenarios 
regarding the effect of constraints. 

Figure  53:  Differences  in  RoW  land  use  in  constrained  policy  scenarios 
compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

4.3.5.  Implications for GHG emissions from the land use sector in EU and RoW 

The land GHG implications of applying constraints on policy scenarios are displayed in 
Figure 54 and Figure 55. Consistently to the land use figures, the reduction in intensity 
of forest management, as a result of constraints, leads to an increased sink in existing 
forests for the EU emission reduction and Increased RoW bioenergy demand scenario. 
This  is  contrasted  by  decreases  of  the  Harvested  Wood  Products  sink/increases  of 
emissions. For the other scenarios, implications for forest management emissions are 
limited.  Net  EU  forestry  emissions  are  reduced  in  all  scenarios  between  7  to 
almost 40 Mt CO2 if constraints are applied. In addition to increases in the forest 
sink, reduced emissions from deforestation contribute to the net emission reduction as 
well as removals from afforestation. 

Impacts  of  the  sustainability  constraints  for  the  RoW  are  dominated  by  reductions  in 
GHG  removals  from  afforestation  (Figure  55).  This  is  not  obvious  from  the  land  use 
implications  discussed  above  (Figure  53),  where  the  net  area  of  used  forest  is 
increased  under  constraints.  This  emphasizes  the  importance  of  gross  area  changes 
that  are  revealed  when  looking  at  changes  in  emissions.  Constraints  on  land 
conversion  shift  land  use  across  the  landscape  with  implications  for  productivity.  For 
example: even if a net area of a certain land use category is not changing the average 
growth rate on this area might be different. 

May 2016 67 

 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Despite  the  fact  that  deforestation  emissions  are  reduced  under  the  constraints,  all 
policy  scenarios  show  a  net  increase  of  RoW  forestry  emissions  in  the  long  run  (in 
2050), by an amount of 20 to 60 Mt CO2. 

Figure  54:  Differences  in  EU  forestry  emissions  in  constrained  policy 
scenarios compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

Figure  55:  Differences  in  RoW  forestry  emissions  in  constrained  policy 
scenarios compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

May 2016 68 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Total  net  land  use  emissions  include  forestry,  other  land  use  and  land  use  change 
(LULUCF)  and  agriculture  non-  CO2  emissions.  Figure  56  presents  net  land  use 
emissions  for  EU28  as  difference  between  constrained  and  unconstrained  policy 
scenarios.  As  observed  for  forestry  emissions  in  all  scenarios  net  emissions  are 
reduced by up to 40 Mt CO2 eq. (EU emission reduction scenario) when constraints are 
applied.  Agriculture  emissions  are  not  affected  except  for  two  scenarios.  The 
magnitude  of  reduction,  however,  is  different.  Largest  reductions  associated  with 
environmental  constraints  are  achieved  in  the  EU  emissions  reduction  and  the 
Increased RoW bioenergy demand scenarios. 

Figure  56:  Differences  in  EU  net  land  use  emissions  in  constrained  policy 
scenarios compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

In the RoW agriculture emissions are more affected by constraints than in EU (Figure 
57).  Figure  47b  has  shown  that  especially  the  constraint  on  HBV  area  conversion 
contributes  most  to  this  effect.  Net  land  use  emissions  in  all  scenarios  are 
reduced  by  the  sum  of  constraints  but  only  due  to  the  large  reductions  of 
agriculture emissions of more than 100 Mt CO2 eq.  

The dominance of agriculture is also  to be noted when looking at global  (RoW +  EU) 
net  land  use  emissions  (Figure  58)  and  is  the  strongest  for  the  Increased  RoW 
bioenergy  demand  scenario,  under  which  more  than  150 Mt  CO2eq.  are  avoided  if 
globally  areas  of  HBV  and  EU-wide  unused  forests  and  other  natural  land  are 
conserved.  While  the  implications  for  agriculture  GHG  emissions  of  constraints  are 
consistent  across  all  scenarios,  the  effect  for  LULUCF  emissions  is  less  straight 
forward. In all four scenarios the combined constraints decrease net LULUCF emissions 
for  RoW  in  the  short  run  (2030)  and  increase  them  in  the  long  run  (2050)  but  with 
different  intensity,  ranging  in  2050  from  16  Mt  for  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy 
demand scenario to almost 60 Mt in the EU emission reduction scenario. In the global 
sum of net land use emissions (Figure 58), net land use emissions in all scenarios 
are  reduced  when  jointly  combining  the  environmental  constraints,  due  to 

May 2016 69 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

large  reductions  of  non-CO2  emissions  from  the  agriculture  and  livestock 
sectors.  This  is  due  to  increased  prices  for  livestock  products  and  thus  reduced 
demand  due  to  elasticities.  Under  HBV  constraints  only  less  fertile  land  is  available, 
leading  to  higher  costs  of  conversion  and  more  grazing  land  to  be  created  to 
compensate for relative productivity losses.  

Figure  57:  Differences  in  RoW  net  land  use  emissions  in  constrained  policy 
scenarios compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

May 2016 70 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Figure  58:  Differences in  global  net  land  use  emissions  in  constrained  policy 
scenarios compared to unconstrained scenarios. 

May 2016 71 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

5.  Summary and Conclusions 

This report describes methods and results of Task 4 of the ReceBio project. A method 
for assessing environmental impacts was developed that is based on two approaches: 
a)  a  comparison  of  different  scenarios  with  varying  biomass  demand  and  b)  the 
introduction of constraints into the model that aim at reducing specific environmental 
impacts. 

When  comparing  Baseline  and  policy  scenarios  for  EU28  the  chosen  indicators  for 
assessing environmental impacts related to biodiversity, GHG and land use tend to be 
affected most. Water impacts are relatively small but also much fewer variables could 
be included. In general, for most environmental aspects deviations from the Baseline 
scenario  are  of  similar  size  or  smaller  for  the  RoW  compared  to  impacts  on  EU28, 
except for the scenario simulating an increased demand for bioenergy in RoW. 

Land use in the Baseline scenario in EU28 is characterized by an increase of cropland 
(including SRC) and total forest area at the expense of other natural land (abandoned 
cropland,  unused  grassland,  etc.).  Also  for  the  land  use  pattern  in  the  Rest  of  the 
World (RoW), a clear increase of cropland and a decrease of other natural land can be 
observed.  Outside  EU28  the  grazing  land  area  increases  while  the  area  of  unused 
forest  decreases.  The  reasons  for  the  loss  differ  and  can  either  be  the  conversion  to 
used forests as well as conversion to cropland or grazing land. The dynamics of forest 
area change differ for world regions. The conversion of forest in certain regions of the 
world is contrasted by the expansion of forest area through afforestation in other parts 
of the world. 

Compared to the Baseline scenario, the Constant EU bioenergy demand scenario leads 
to a lower amount of cropland area and higher amounts of other natural land in EU28, 
which  is  related  to  a  considerably  reduced  area  of  SRC.  While  the  total  forest  area 
does not differ between the two scenarios too much, there are comparably large shifts 
within the forest from used forest to unused. As expected, the land use patterns in the 
Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand  scenario  differ  most  from  the  baseline  scenario, 
when  looking  outside  EU28,  especially  in  the  year  2050.  Changes  in  the  other  three 
policy scenarios seem to be almost not significant in this comparison (Figure 26). The 
impacts  are  related  to  the  conversion  of  more  unused  forest  to  used  forest  and 
conversion of other natural land to cropland, which is directly related to an increase in 
the bioenergy demand in RoW. 

The indicator unused forest area is a good proxy for assessing changes in the intensity 
of  forest  management  due  to  increased  biomass  demand.  If  forests  in  EU  are 
protected  from  further  intensification  (i.e.  through  constrained  conversion  of  unused 
forest  into  used  forest)  globally  an  increased  production  of  SRC  can  be  observed 
(comparably less  SRC  is  established  if  constraints  are  put  on  the  conversion  of  other 
natural  land  in  EU).  In  addition,  there  is  a  significant  conversion  of  unused  forest  to 
used  forest  in  the  RoW  that  is  accompanied  with  constraining  forestry  intensification 
within  EU.  This  area  is  exceeding  the  area  constrained  in  EU28,  so  globally  slightly 
more forest area is converted if the constraint is applied in EU. 

May 2016 72 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

The impacts of sustainability constraints increase EU forest harvests in 2050. The main 
reason for this development is the protection of HBV areas outside of the EU: when no 
conversion is allowed for these areas, the EU imports of roundwood will decrease and 
harvest pressure in the domestic forests is increased. For all scenarios, until 2050, the 
area  of  SRC  increase  when  combined  constraints  on  environmental  sustainability  are 
applied. In the RoW, grazing land, used forest and other natural land increase mainly 
as a consequence of environmental constraints on HBV land. 

The  development  of  areas  of  high  biodiversity  value  (HBV)  is  a  key  indicator  for 
assessing effects on biodiversity. The conversion of these areas is very likely related to 
a loss of biodiversity. Already in the Baseline scenario in many regions of the world a 
significant  conversion  of  areas  of  HBV  (including  forest,  grazing  land,  cropland  and 
other  natural  land)  is  occurring  in  the  model  until  2050.  Impacts  of  the  policy 
scenarios on HBV land in the EU28 are comparably low due to the fact that only small 
areas  fall  in  the  category  of  high  biodiversity  value.  From  a  global  RoW  perspective, 
the conversion of HBV land is more relevant as the relative share of land classified as 
HBV  is  larger.  Unused  forests  form  the  largest  share,  followed  by  other  natural  land 
and grazing land. 

If  land  of  HBV  is  protected  from  being  converted,  more  pressure  for  biomass 
production  is  noted  from  the  areas  that  are  not  protected  associated  with  more  land 
conversion.  Constraining  the  conversion  of  land  with  high  biodiversity  value  has 
implications  for  biomass  production  for  EU28  leading  to  decreased  EU  net-imports  of 
feedstocks  for  material  and  energy  use  (sawlogs  and  pulpwood,  wood  pellets  and 
industrial  by-products),  and  more  domestic  harvest  (used  for  HWP  production  for 
exports). 

Net GHG emissions from LULUCF in the Baseline scenario  form an overall relatively 
stable net sink in the EU. The forest sink, however, is projected to decline; and more 
strongly  in  the  two  policy  scenarios  with  increased  domestic  biomass  production, 
which is in-line with other reports and scientific publications. Comparatively small are 
effects  on  afforestation  removals  between  policy  scenarios.  The  scenarios  are  also 
affecting  non-CO2  emissions.  In  particular,  an  increase  in  bioenergy  demand  is  noted 
to  lead  to  some  agricultural  emissions  related  to  food  and  feed  production  being 
“exported”  from  EU  to  RoW.  Looking  at  total  net  LULUCF  and  Agriculture  sector 
emissions, it is striking that, compared to the  Baseline; all scenarios reduce net GHG 
emissions  from  LULUCF.  Agriculture  emissions  are  higher  for  the  Constant  EU 
bioenergy scenario but fully compensated by LULUCF CO2 emission reductions. 

Consistently to the land use figures, the  reduction in intensity of forest management, 
as  a  result  of  constraints,  leads  to  an  increased  sink  in  existing  forests  for  the  EU 
emission reduction and Increased RoW bioenergy demand scenario. This is contrasted 
by  decreases  of  the  HWP  sink/increases  of  emissions.  For  the  other  scenarios, 
implications  for  forest  management  GHG  emissions  are  limited.  Net  EU  forestry 
emissions  are  reduced  in  all  scenarios  between  7  to  almost  40 Mt  CO2  if  constraints 
are  applied.  Despite  the  fact  that  deforestation  emissions  are  reduced,  all  policy 
scenarios show, under the constraints, a net increase of GHG emissions in the long run 
(in 2050), by an amount of 20 to 60 Mt CO2. 

May 2016 73 

 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

In  the  global  sum  of  net  land  use  emissions,  all  scenarios  with  constraints  result  in 
less  GHG  emission  compared  to  the  unconstrained  scenarios.  It  has  however  to  be 
noted that this is only due to large  reductions of agriculture  GHG  emissions, of more 
than 100 Mt CO2eq. Global LULUCF emissions are higher with constraints for three  of 
the  four  scenarios  in  2050  (exception  is  the  Increased  RoW  bioenergy  demand 
scenario). 

This  means  that  overall  there  seem  to  be  clear  synergies  at  EU  level  of  protecting 
biodiversity, avoiding the intensification in unused forests and the conversion of other 
natural land  regarding  global  net  GHG  emissions  from  the  land  use  sector.  However, 
the effects are different for different sectors, different for different time horizons and 
also different for EU and RoW as reduced production in EU is pushed abroad leading to 
higher RoW LULUCF emissions in the long run but lower total GHG emissions. 

May 2016 74 

 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Acronyms 
EU 
GHG 
G4M 
GLOBIOM 
HBVA   
HWP 
UNEP-WCMC  United  Nations  Environment  Programme 

European Union 
Greenhouse gas 
Global Forest Model 
Global Biomass Model 
High Biodiversity Value Area 
Harvested Wood Products 

-  World  Conservation 

LULUCF 
RoW 
SRC 
WDPA   

Monitoring Centre 
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry 
Rest of the World, excluding EU 
Short Rotation Coppice (sub-category of cropland) 
World Database on Protected Areas 

May 2016 75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Annex 1 
Below  follow  a  more  detailed  explanation  of  the  Task  3  indicators  that  are  screened 
and the model variables that are used to underline their development. 

Production of biomass for EU by biomass type 
The  GLOBIOM  model  provides  information  about  the  production  of  a  number  of 
important biomass sources. The biomass production sources are endogenous variables 
of the model and were analyzed directly.  

The main types of biomass products that were covered and analyzed are: 
  Harvest  of  roundwood  from  forest.  This  is  an  aggregate  category  comprising  of 
felled  or  otherwise  harvested  and  removed  wood,  with  or  without  bark.  It  includes 
sawlogs  and  veneer  logs;  pulpwood,  round  and  split;  other  industrial  roundwood, 
and  also  branches,  roots,  stumps  and  burls  (where  these  are  harvested).  It  is 
reported in cubic metres solid volume. 

  Forest  chips.  Forest  chips  are  fresh  wood  chips  made  directly  of  wood  that  is 
harvested  from  the  forest,  used  for  energy  production,  and  has  not  had  any 
previous  use  (as  opposed  to  wood  chips  from  industrial  by-products).  There  are 
several raw material types of forest chips:  

o  Tops and branches removed from trees during final felling 
o  Sawlogs  that  are  rejected  being  unsuitable  for  material  purposes  due  to 

decay etc. 

o  Delimbed small size stems or un-delimbed small-size trees from thinnings. 
o  Pulpwood  size  logs  allocated  to  energy  production  from  thinning  or  final 

felling. 

o  Tree stumps. 

 

Industrial-by  products.  This  category  includes  industrial  chips,  sawdust,  shavings, 
trimmings  and  bark.  They  are  supplied  as  by-products  available  in  proportions 
from  the  processes  of  wood  products  industry,  mainly  sawmilling  but  also  wood 
based panels and joinery production. Industrial by-products have to be  clean and 
they are not altered by any chemical process. They are important raw materials for 
pulp, wood based panels (Particleboard, MDF/HDF) and wood pellet production as 
well as in bioenergy production as such. 

  Woody  biomass  from  short  rotation  coppice.  This  category  covers  short  rotation 
coppices  are  formed  by  tree  plantations  established  and  managed  under  an 
intensive, short-rotation regime on agricultural land. They can be established with 
quickly growing species such as poplar and willow, and managed under a  coppice 
system in a two-to-five-year rotation.  

  Woody biomass from perennials. This category covers woody biomass from species 
such  as  miscanthus  and  reed  canary  grass  that  can  be  established  and  used  to 
produce biomass for energy purposes. 

  Agricultural and livestock products are covered such as: rice, wheat, other cereals, 
oilseeds,  sugar  crops,  other  crops,  ruminant  meat,  monogastric  meat  and  eggs, 
milk, and crop residues. 

May 2016 76 

 
 
 
 
Study on Impacts on Resource Efficiency of Future Demand for Bioenergy – Task 4 Report 

Land use  
The main land use types are covered by the model and it endogenously calculates the 
change between these land use types. We indicate the amount of land use change that 
can be expected to occur between these various classes: 
  Used and Unused Forest5 
  Plantations  
  Cropland 
  Grazing land 
  Other natural land 

Change in production patterns (forest intensification, change of 
agricultural crop) 
For this indicator we evaluate and analyze the following aspects  

  Forest  intensification:  This  is  expressed  in  terms  of  change  in  forest  rotation 
periods and change in amount of wood from harvesting operations. Both of these 
two aspects are covered by the model with internal parameters.  

  Agricultural intensification: This will be expressed in terms of change in crop yields 

and how it evolves over time for the various regions.  

Use of biomass in relevant sectors  
For this indicator we monitor the amount of biomass that is being used by the forest-
based industries, for other woody products, as well as the amount of biomass that is 
being acquired and used for energy production.  

Import and export of biomass  
For  this  indicator  we  monitor  the  amount  of  biomass  that  is  being  traded  between 
EU28 and the rest of the world. This covers both import and export and is expressed 
in terms of trade with the main regions as covered by the GLOBIOM model.  

Trends of price indices and ranges for different biomass types  
For this indicator we monitor the annual producer price  of the various biomass types 
and see how it evolves over time for the EU-28 and other regions of importance. The 
main aspect of interest is here the relative increase/decrease in price over time that is 
driven  by  cost  fundamentals  (the  need  for  longer  transport,  acquisition  of  more 
expensive biomass resources etc.).  

5  The  term  "used  forests"  refers  to  all  forest  areas  where  harvesting  operations  take 
place, while "unused forests" refers to undisturbed or primary forests. There are other 
three  land  cover  types  represented  in  the  model  to  cover  the  total  land  area:  other 
agricultural land, wetlands, and not relevant (bare areas, water bodies, snow and ice, 
and  artificial  surfaces).  These  three  categories  are  currently  kept  constant  at  their 
initial level. 

May 2016 77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on impacts on resource 
efficiency of future EU demand 
for bioenergy  
Task 5 

Case studies 

l 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Executive Summary  

Background 

There  is  a  wide  variety  in  the  type  of  forest  and  agricultural  resources  in  countries 
across the EU, as well as in how they are managed by owners, and by their respective 
governments  in  terms  of  policy.  The  objective  of  this  analysis  is  to  facilitate  better 
understanding  of  how  the  specific  local  circumstances  in  each  country  (from  local  to 
national  level)  influence,  and  are  influenced  by  national  and  regional  policies.  It  also 
aids in understanding the potential contribution of biomass utilization towards meeting 
renewable  energy  targets  in  contrasting  policy  and  resource  environments.  We  place 
the  projections  of  this  study  in  the  context  of  the  current  biomass  resource, 
consumption and policy situation within three selected case study countries. 

The  task  will  analyse  information  collected  within  the  project  in  more  detail  for  three 
selected contrasting case  study countries to  examine resource use, its environmental 
impact,  and  also  competition  for  biomass  and  resource  efficiency.  Together  with  the 
Commission,  the  consortium  has  selected  one  country  each  from  Northern,  Central 
and Southern Europe: Finland, Germany and Italy. 

Methodology 
For the analysis of resource availability, the focus of this task is mostly on forest as a 
biomass  resource  as  it  covers  a  significant  land  area  in  Europe  and  is  where  more 
consistent European data  is available. For more information on agricultural and other 
types of biomass please see Task 1 report. 

For the analysis of the policy environment, the focus was a little wider. The intention 
was to provide a consistent record of the policies in place that will drive or impact on 
uptake  of  bioenergy  specifically  from  solid  and  gaseous  sources  within  Finland, 
Germany  and  Italy.  These  include  highly  targeted  policies  for  bioenergy  use  in 
electricity  or  heating  or  wider  policies  promoting  action,  such  as  bioeconomy  and 
biodiversity  strategies.  The  key  policy  measures  in  place  at  present  were  identified. 
This analysis provides a record of the policies, legislative and fiscal actions in place in 
the  three  countries  selected  that  are  of  relevance  to  the  bioeconomy  more  widely. 
Given  the  future-looking  purpose  of  this  task,  the  analysis  considers  both  binding 
measures  and  more  strategic  policy  documents  that  might  indicate  future  directions. 
For  federal  countries,  the  focus  was  on  national  action,  however,  when  considering 
future  direction,  if  any  evidence  emerged  from  key  regions  in  terms  of  leadership, 
these were noted. 

The baseline scenario, described and developed in Task 3 of the project, forms a point 
of  comparison  in  terms  of  the  implication  of  various  policies.  For  the  case  study 
countries,  this  scenario  was  assessed  with  respect  to  indicators  such  as  land  use 
change  development  over  time,  biomass  feedstock  used  for  production  of  energy, 
materials, and other biomaterials (solid wood, energy crops, forest chips, wood chips, 
etc.),  and  the  total  production  level  of  the  wood  processing  industries  showing  the 
impact on competition of the supply of biomass resources. 

April 2016 2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Comparison of the three case study countries  

Biomass availability  

Germany  contains  the  highest  volume  of  growing  stock  per  hectare  of  the  three 
selected  case  study  countries  and  Germany  and  Italy  contain  a  greater  diversity  of 
tree species than Finland, due to the boreal climate of Finland. Finland’s forests have a 
high  proportion  of  trees  in  lower  age  classes  compared  to  the  other  two  countries 
analysed.  Italy  contains  a  high  proportion  of  unmanaged  forests.  In  terms  of  forest 
ownership, Germany has the greatest proportion of publically owned forest followed by 
Italy. Most of the forests of Finland are privately owned; with the exception of Lapland 
where much of the forest is in public ownership and protected. Nevertheless, Finland’s 
privately owned forests are usually intensively managed whereas in Italy, the privately 
owned  forests  are  often  unmanaged.  Germany  has  the  highest  net  annual  increment 
rates  of  the  three  countries  due  to  its  temperate  climate.  Of  the  three  countries,  the 
forests  of  Finland  are  most  intensively  managed  and  harvested,  however  actual 
harvested  volumes  per  hectare  remain  lower  than  in  Germany  due  to  the  lower 
increment rates. 

Policy highlights 

The targets included in the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) are the main drivers 
for current renewable energy production in all three Member States and, beneath this, 
efforts to promote bioenergy are framed. These targets are in all cases supported by 
incentives  to  promote  production  of  bioenergy  and  the  expansion  of  bioenergy 
infrastructure, largely for heat or CHP. However, the nature of the bioenergy use and 
feedstock production varies: Finland is almost  exclusively focused  on forestry,  woody 
biomass  use  and  associated  waste  and  residues,  while  in  comparison,  Italy’s  focus  is 
around  the  expansion  of  agro-forestry  and  use  of  residues  and  wastes.  Germany 
shows  a  broader  focus  reflecting  the  potential  availability  of  a  wider  range  of 
feedstocks.  This  difference  impacts  on  the  nature  of  policy  support  and  the 
consequences  of  increasing  demand  for  biomass  i.e.  intensity  of  forestry  use 
compared to expansion in agro-forestry area.  

All  three  countries  have  their  own  approach  to  address  the  issue  of  competition  for 
biomass. In Finland strategies are aimed at abating concerns about increased demand 
for biomass and its impacts on the wider availability for woody biomass for energy and 
material uses. In Germany there is some concern about increasing pressure on forest 
systems  and  there  are  some  finance  schemes  emerging  which  aim  to  protect  forest 
areas in line with climate mitigation and adaptation goals. In Italy, there is more focus 
on the expansion of energy crops, including agroforestry due to the existing resource 
base,  however  efforts  are  focused  on  marginal  land  and  areas  no  longer  fit  for 
agricultural production rather than general agricultural land. 

Sustainable  forest  management  (SFM)  and  associated  certification  is  supported  in  all 
three  selected  case  study  countries,  however,  forest  management  lies  with  the  land 
owner,  outside  of  protected  areas.  Efforts  regarding  higher  levels  of  sustainability 
remain largely voluntary. In Germany the question of voluntary certification for energy 
biomass as well as wood for material use has been discussed but binding action is yet 
to result. Beyond this, no mandated rules were identified in the three Member States 
regarding wider use of solid biomass for energy or the use of biomaterials. 

Key baseline modelling results  
The  GLOBIOM  model  was  applied  to  the  three  countries  and  used  to  evaluate 
developments  in  land  and  resource  use  over  time  from  the  period  2010-2050  under 
the baseline scenario. 

April 2016 3 

 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

For Finland, the Baseline scenario estimates almost negligible change in land use over 
time  until  2050.  However,  the  increase  in  the  demand  for  bioenergy  and  woody 
material results in some unused forest being taken into use, and the overall land use 
structure  of  the  country  remains  dominated  by  actively  managed  forests  used  for 
wood  harvests.  There  is  not  much  change  across  the  timeline  in  terms  of  the  wood 
flows,  except  for  some  small  changes  in  the  imports  of  roundwood.  There  are 
increases in sawnwood  outputs and industrial by-products: increased  energy demand 
creates more demand for sawmill by-products and hence makes sawnwood production 
more  profitable.  On  the  supply  side,  the  most  noticeable  trend  is  the  doubling  of 
imported  wood  chip  from  2.2  to  4.6  Mm3  between  2010  and  2050.  Otherwise  this 
already  well-evolved  wood  production  market  does  not  change  much  over  the 
simulated timeline.  

For  Germany,  the  most  notable  trend  in  the  baseline  modelling  is  the  emergence  of 
short  rotation  coppice  (SRC)  as  a  feedstock  over  the  2010  to  2030  time  horizon.  A 
relatively small increase in the harvest and use of wood for material purposes is seen 
within the country. 

For Italy, as for Germany, there is significant expansion in SRC use for energy. Within 
the Italian model outputs  there are  significant domestic impacts in terms of land use 
change within Italy – most noticeably with conversion of other natural land to forest - 
and  also  significant  rises  in  roundwood  imports  and  pellet  imports.  For  Italy,  the 
projections  show  changes  in  resource  use  in  terms  of  two  significant  aspects  i.e. 
within-country production and production in other countries resulting in imports.  

Results of the analysis 
The aim of this study was to examine biomass resource and consumption patterns and 
their  associated  relevant  policies  in  the  three  case  study  countries  Finland,  Germany 
and  Italy.  The  results  of  the  review  were  then  used  to  examine  GLOBIOM  outputs  at 
the country level to look at evolution of these outputs over time to 2050 and provide a 
context on current practice. 

From  the  resource  side,  the  three  countries  examined  here  have  contrasting 
situations.  In  Finland,  there  is  an  abundant  forest  resource  which  is  intensively 
managed  and  harvested.  There  is  a  highly  evolved  and  progressive  timber  and  pulp 
industry and renewable energy from wood is already in common use. There is not so 
much  scope  to  increase  SRC  outside  of  the  extreme  south  of  the  country  due  to  the 
climate.  In  Germany,  there  also  a  significant  forest  resource  which  is  slightly  less 
intensively  managed  than  in  Finland in  general,  but  also  supplies  a  very  active  wood 
industry.  The  agricultural  land  there  may  provide  an  opportunity  for  increased  SRC 
plantations. In Italy, the forest area covers the same proportion of the country as for 
Germany; however, much of this forest is not actively managed and, as a whole, there 
is  not  as  large  wood  industry  as  in  the  other  two  countries  studied.  Consequently, 
there  is  more  policy  emphasis  on  agroforestry  and  SRC.  From  a  policy  point  of  view, 
the policies and incentives available generally reflect the particular resource conditions 
in each of the three countries.  

April 2016 4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Table of contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 2 
Background .................................................................................................... 2 
Methodology .................................................................................................. 2 
Comparison of the three case study countries..................................................... 3 
Biomass availability ...................................................................................... 3 
Policy highlights ........................................................................................... 3 
Key baseline modelling results .......................................................................... 3 
Results of the analysis ..................................................................................... 4 
Table of contents ............................................................................................... 5 
Introduction and resource overview ..................................................................... 6 
Data quality ................................................................................................ 6 
Growing stock and species ............................................................................ 6 
Age class distribution.................................................................................... 8 
Forest ownership ........................................................................................10 
Net annual increment ..................................................................................10 
Forest harvest intensity ...............................................................................12 
Wood flow charts ........................................................................................14 
National level of recovered wood and share of consumption .............................15 
Overview of supply and consumption patterns in the three countries .................16 
Policy analysis ..................................................................................................18 
Policy methodology ........................................................................................18 
Policy review - Finland ....................................................................................19 
National policy directly driving or impacting on the uptake of bioenergy .............19 
National policy impacting on the nature or extent of the feedstock base .............20 
National policy with wider implications for the use of the biomass resource base .21 
Policy review - Germany .................................................................................21 
National policy directly driving or impacting on the uptake of bioenergy .............22 
National policy impacting on the nature or extent of the feedstock base .............23 
National policy with wider implications for the use of the biomass resource base .24 
Policy review - Italy .......................................................................................25 
National policy directly driving or impacting on the uptake of bioenergy .............25 
National policy impacting on the nature or extent of the feedstock base .............27 
National policy with wider implications for the use of the biomass resource base .28 
Key points emerging from policy analysis ..........................................................28 
Policies driving uptake of bioenergy ...............................................................29 
Policies impacting on the nature of the feedstock base .....................................29 
Model results for the case study countries ...........................................................31 
Initial state ...................................................................................................31 
Feedstocks .................................................................................................31 
Semi-finished forest products .......................................................................35 
Land use development in Finland .....................................................................38 
Sectoral development in Finland ......................................................................39 
Land use development in Germany ..................................................................41 
Sectoral development in Germany ...................................................................41 
Land use development in Italy .........................................................................44 
Sectoral development in Italy ..........................................................................45 
Future trends and policies – key points identified in the modelling analysis. ..........47 
Land use and land management developments ...............................................47 
Sectoral developments ................................................................................47 
Conclusions .....................................................................................................48 
References.......................................................................................................49 

April 2016 5 

 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Introduction and resource overview 

There  is  much  heterogeneity  in  the  type  of  forest  and  agricultural  resources  in 
countries across the EU28 as well as how they are managed by owners, and by their 
respective governments. In order to facilitate better understanding of how the specific 
local  circumstances  in  each  country  (from  local  to  national  level)  influence,  and  are 
influenced  by  national  and  regional  policies  the  specific  local  circumstances  of  three 
countries  were  examined  in  terms  of  their  resources,  and  their  policy  environments. 
This  will  also  aid  in  understanding  the  potential  contribution  of  biomass  utilization 
towards  meeting  renewable  energy  targets  in  contrasting  policy  and  resource 
environments.  The  task  examines  information  collected  in  detail  for  three  selected 
contrasting  case  study  countries  to  analyse  resource  use,  its  environmental  impact, 
and  also  competition  for  biomass  and  resource  efficiency.  Together  with  the 
Commission,  the  consortium  has  selected  one  country  each  from  Northern,  Central 
and Southern Europe, namely Finland, Germany and Italy. These are three contrasting 
countries in terms of biomass resources and bioenergy consumption.  

Data quality  

For woody biomass there was good data available for the three countries and we used 
data  that  was  collected  in  a  consistent  manner  (i.e.  from  the  same  studies  and 
sources  where  possible).  Consistent  information  on  agricultural  biomass  was  less 
easily available but covered in depth in the Task 1 chapter. 

First  the  resource  situation  is  described  in  the  three  countries  under  a  number  of 
headings.  The  analysis  is  mostly  confined  to  European  level  datasets  calculated  in  a 
consistent  manner,  to  ensure  the  most  comparability  between  the  three  case  study 
countries.  Second,  the  policies  affecting  the  use  of  biomass  resources  in  the  three 
countries are examined in detail. In the third part of this report, model results for the 
case study countries resulting from the GLOBIOM runs for the Baseline scenario of the 
project  are  scrutinized,  based  on  the  resource  availability  and  policy  analysis.  Land 
definitions are consistent throughout the project and are described in detail in Task 3. 

Growing stock and species 

Growing stock refers to the volume of wood, standing in the living trees as measured 
and  reported  by  national  and/or  regional  forest  inventory  according  to  a  specific 
methodology.  (UNECE,  2010).  This  variable  indicates  where  the  greatest  volume  of 
trees  is  located.  When  evaluating  the  biomass  resource  for  countries  it  is  also 
important to look at the species distribution available as some species and forest types 
are more productive than others.  

The most common tree species in Finland is Scots pine, which is the dominant species 
in  64%  of  the  total  forest  area  (Figure  5.1,1,  Figure  5.1.2)  and  accounts  for  almost 
50%  of  the  growing  stock.  The  other  important  species  group  is  Norwegian  spruce 
which is the main species in 24% of total forest area and accounts for 30% of growing 
stock. Birch dominated forest covers just over 9% of total area and 16.7% of growing 
stock. (OSF, 2013). Figure 5.1.1 shows that the growing stock volume per hectare is 
higher  in  the  more  productive  and  more  temperate  regions  of  southern  Finland  by 
comparison with northern Finland, much of which lies inside the Arctic Circle. 

April 2016 6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure 5.1.1: Growing stock of coniferous trees in Europe. (m3/ha) 

Source: Gallaun et al. 2010 

Figure 5.1.2: Growing stock of broadleaved trees in Europe. (m3/ha) 

Source: Gallaun et al. 2010 

April 2016 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

In  the  temperate  climate  of  Germany,  the  south  is  dominated  by  spruce  forest 
whereas  northern  Germany  has  more  pine  dominated  forests.  West  Germany  has  a 
higher  proportion  of  broadleaved  forests  with  oak  and  beech  being  commonplace.  In 
recent decades, more importance has been attached to regeneration with site-adapted 
tree  species.  German  efforts  to  shape  the  composition  of  forest  species  in  a  more 
natural way has resulted in a greater proportion of semi-natural forests (i.e. a similar 
species  composition and structure to a natural forest in the area and a large amount 
of  natural  regeneration).  Nowadays  approximately  73%  of  German  forests  consist  of 
mixed  stands.  Spruce  accounts  for  the  largest  share  among  the  tree  species  (28%), 
followed  by  pine  (23%),  beech  trees  (15%)  and  oak  trees  (10%)  (Figure  5.1.3).  As 
can  be  seen  in  Figure  5.1.1  the  amount  of  growing  stock  in  the  forest  area  is  much 
higher than in Finland. The forests of Germany are highly productive especially in the 
southern half of Germany where volumes of greater than 250 m3/ha are common.  

Italy  has  a  very  wide  variety  of  tree  species.  The  country’s  forests  are  dominated  by 
broadleaved  species  such  as  beech  and  oak  (Figure  5.1.3).  Poplar  plantations  also 
occur in lower lying areas of northern Italy. Most of the forest growing stock occurs in 
the mountainous regions of the Alps and the Apennines. The growing stock volume is 
in  general  much  lower  by  comparison  with  Germany  and  situated  in  steep  and  often 
inaccessible  mountainous  areas.  Volumes  are  highest  in the  Alpine  areas  of  Northern 
Italy (>250 m3/ha). Significant volumes also occur along the Apennines.  

Age class distribution 

A high proportion of woody biomass for energy comes from younger age classes so it 
is  helpful  to  look  at  the  age  class  distribution  when  evaluating  the  resource.  More 
intensive management and harvesting of a forest reduces the average age of a forest 
area. 

In  Finland  in  2010,  fellings  as  a  percentage  of  the  net  annual  increment  of  forest 
available for wood supply was 65% (Forest Europe, 2011). However it is necessary  to 
also  look  at  the  age  class  distribution  when  examining  additional  potential  harvest. 
Vilen  et  al.  (2012)  gathered  historical  and  current  forest  age-class  distribution  data 
from  1950  to  2010  and  found  that  the  mean  age  class  in  Finland  has  decreased 
significantly with the area weighted mean  forest age reducing by 39  years  over a 60 
year period. This large decrease in the mean age and share of old forest can be partly 
explained  by  fellings  for  post  war  reparation  and  a  shift  in  forest  management  from 
selective to clear felling. Most of Finland’s forests are in the lower age classes with few 
forests  over  100  years  of  age.  In  the  north,  the  age  classes  are  more  evenly 
distributed  whereas  in  the  south,  younger  age  classes  are  more  prevalent  and  more 
old forest (100 years plus) can be found there than elsewhere in Finland. In southern 
Finland, the spruce dominated forests are intensively managed and harvested. 

For  Germany,  Vilen  et  al.  (2012)  found  that  the  mean  age  class  has  decreased  with 
the area weighted mean forest age reducing by 11 years over the 60 year period. The 
share  of  old  forest  has  also  decreased  by  12%  since  1950,  although  there  are 
indications that this is changing (see German forest inventory 2014).  Germany has a 
much  higher  proportion  of  older  forest  than  Finland,  with  over  30%  of  forest  in  the 
age classes of 80 years and above. 

In Italy, the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, and the North Eastern region contain more 
trees in older age classes (80+ years of age) than the rest of the country.  

April 2016 8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure  5.1.3:  Dominant  tree  species  according  to  Brus  et  al.,  2011.  The  numbers 
represent:  1.  Abies  spp;  2.  Alnus  spp;  3.  Betula  spp;  4.  Carpinus  spp;  5.  Castanea 
spp; 6. Eucalyptus spp; 7. Fagus spp; 8. Fraxinus spp; 9. Larix spp; 10. Broadleaved 
misc;  11.  Conifers  misc;  12.  Pinus  misc;  13.  Quercus  misc;  14.  Picea  spp;  15.  Pinus 
pinaster;  16.  Pinus  sylvestris;  17.  Populus  spp;  18.  Pseudotsuga  menziesii;  19. 
Quercus robur & Quercus petraea; 20. Robinia spp. 

(Source: Brus et al., 2011) 

April 2016 9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Forest ownership 

Forest  ownership  is  an  important  indicator  of  forest  management.  In  general, 
publically  owned  forests  are  more  intensively  managed.  Holding  size  is  also  an 
important predictor of management and harvesting levels as larger forest holdings are 
much more likely to be harvested than small, fragmented forest stands (Eggers et al. 
2015). 

Over  Finland  as  a  whole,  50%  of  the  forest  area  is  privately  owned.  35%  of  forest 
area is owned by the state and 7.5% by companies. The proportion of privately owned 
forest  is  larger  in  the  south  of  Finland  with  over  75%  of  forests  in  this  region  being 
privately owned. A much larger proportion of forest (over 50%) is publically owned in 
the northern part of Finland but much of this is protected area and outside the wood 
potential  for  industrial  or  energy  use.  By  contrast,  a  high  proportion  of  Germany’s 
forests is publically owned but there is a higher prevalence of private ownership in the 
north-west and south east of the country. The majority of the forest area in Italy is in 
private  ownership;  however  a  significant  area  is  in  public  ownership,  particularly  in 
Southern  Italy.  A  large  proportion  of  Italian  forest  stands  have  been  abandoned  by 
their  owners  and  are  hence  unmanaged.  This  has  occurred  due  to  the  high  costs  of 
management and low profitability of harvested wood. 

Figure 5.1.4: Proportion of forest land in private ownership. 
Source: Pulla et al. 2013 

Net annual increment 

This refers to the average annual volume of gross increment minus natural losses on 
all  trees  over  a  given  reference  period  as  measured  and  reported  by  national  and/or 
regional  forest  inventory  according  to  a  specific  methodology.  In  Finland,  the  net 
annual increment (NAI) recorded varies from 7-9 m3/ha in the South to under 3 m3/ha 
in  the  North.  This  can  be  explained  by  the  less  temperate  climate  as  well  as  less 
intense  forest  management  in  the  northern  part  of  Finland  which  has  a  sparse 

April 2016 10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

population  and  lies  within  the  Arctic  Circle.  In  Germany,  the  NAI  varies  between  7-9 
m3/ha/yr in the east to 13-15 m3/ha in the highly productive forests such as the Black 
Forest in the south-west.  

For Italy, as can be seen in Figure 5.1.5 the NAI is low by comparison with Germany. 
The NAI ranged from under 3 m3/ha/yr in the South and Central Italy to 7-9 m3/ha/yr 
in North East Italy. This can be explained by lower water availability in southern Italy.  

Figure  5.1.5:  Net  annual  increment  and  fellings  in  the  three  countries  for  2010. 
Accounting  for  actual  removals  +  residues  +  harvest  losses  would  result  in  a  higher 
figure than fellings alone. Therefore this chart is indicative of harvest levels only.  
Source: Forest Europe 2011 

April 2016 11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure 5.1.6: Net annual increment in European countries. 
Source: EFISCEN 

Forest harvest intensity 

In  order  to  identify  opportunities  for  mobilising  unused  potential  it  is  necessary  to 
understand  forest  management  intensity  around  Europe.  The  forest  harvesting 
intensity  here  was  defined  as  annual  fellings  (removals  +  harvest  losses)  as  a 
percentage  of net annual increment. Levers et al. 2014 examined the spatial aspects 
of  the  drivers  of  forest  harvest  intensity  patterns  in  Europe  and  found  that  spatial 

April 2016 12 

 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

patterns  of  forest  harvesting  intensity  were  well  explained  by  forest  resource  related 
variables such as share of plantation species and accessibility.  

Harvesting  intensity  was  found  to  be  especially  high  in  southern  Finland  where  the 
majority of Finland’s population lives. Harvesting decreased in intensity from south to 
north.  Despite  the  high  intensity  of  harvesting  in  Finland,  the  harvested  volume  per 
hectare  is  lower  than  in  central  Europe  e.g.  Germany  and  Austria,  due  to  the  boreal 
climate and hence lower growth and productivity levels in Finland (Levers et al., 2014) 
(Figure  5.1.6).  Levers  et  al.  2014  found  that  Southern  Germany  had  high  levels  of 
harvested volume. However this did not correlate with high intensity of harvesting and 
was  accounted  for  by  forest  productivity  in  the  area.  As  can  be  seen  in  Figure  5.1.6 
the NAI is very high in Southern Germany.  

Forest  harvest  intensity  in  Italy  is  much  lower  than  in  Germany  or  Finland  (Figure 
5.1.7). Unlike in Germany where the harvest intensity was relatively low but harvested 
volumes  remained  high,  the  harvested  volumes  are  also  relatively  low  in  Italy.  This 
can  be  explained  by  much  of  the  forest  area  being  located  in  the  inaccessible 
mountainous  areas  of  the  Alps  and  Apennines.  The  red  area  in  Italy  indicates  high 
levels  of  harvest  intensity,  corresponding  to  areas  where  poplar  plantations  occur. 
These plantations contribute to harvesting statistics but are not included in the forest 
inventory. The high intensity in SW France is attributable to three major storms in the 
period 2000-2010 which resulted in a high level of removals from the forest area due 
to windblow. The study utilizes for all countries national forestry reports and statistics 
that  can  be  influenced  by  natural  disturbances  so  this  effect  may  be  prominent  in 
other regions also. The authors themselves states in the report that the storm Gudrun 
in 2005 may have influenced their assessment for Sweden.  

April 2016 13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure  5.1.7:  European  administrative  units  (NUTS  0-3)  showing  (a)  average  forest 
harvesting intensity (% - annual fellings (removals + harvest losses) as a percentage 
of  net  annual  increment)  and  (b)  average  harvested  timber  volumes  (m3/ha)  for 
2000–2010. Source: Levers et al., 2014. 

Wood flow charts  

Wood flow charts are presented here from Finland and Germany. There were no wood 
flow charts available from Italy.  

Figure 5.1.8. Wood flow chart for Finland 2008 
Source: EUBIONET project. 

In  Finland  (Figure  5.1.8)  wood  flows  are  largest  in  the  pulp  industry  compared  with 
wood industry. Sawn timber also accounts for a large share of production. These have 
solid biofuels and black liquor as their main energy source. There is also considerable 
importation of round wood and chips from Russia.  

For  Germany  (Figure  5.1.9)  sawn  timber  makes  up  a  large  share  of  the  wood  flows. 
Recovered wood, particularly paper is also quite a strong feature in the German wood 
flows.  The  pulp  industry  and  associated  products  such  as  black  liquor  have  a  much 
smaller role in the German wood industry. 

April 2016 14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure 5.1.9: Wood flows in Germany in 2008.  

(Note: 2008 country flowcharts shown in this section are not to same scale.) 
Source: EUBIONET project. 

National level of recovered wood and share of consumption 

Woody biomass is a recyclable product. The recycled amount of the overall recyclable 
potential  depends  very  much  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  collecting  system.  The 
recovery rate for paper in the EU27 was about 74% in 2010 (Mantau et al., 2010) and 
has  thereby  reached  almost  its  technically  possible  maximum.  2012  recycling  rates 
according to Eurostat for paper and cardboard were Germany 87.6%, Italy 85.5% and 
Finland 99.2%). The recovery rate for post-consumer wood i.e. wood-based materials 
such as massive wood, plywood, particleboard, MDF etc., that leave the use process at 
the consumer after a shorter or longer service life - in Europe is very diverse.  

As  stated  in  Task  1,  Germany,  and  Italy  number  among  the  biggest  consumers  of 
recycled wood in the EU. The two main importers are Italy, due to their particleboard 
industry  and  Germany  with  developed  energy  generation  plants.  Owing  to  its  high 
bulk/value ratio, recovered wood is not transported long distances and therefore it is 
usually used close to the place of collection. 

Germany  is  the  biggest  market  of  recovered  wood  in  the  EU  (see  Task  1).  Small  to 
very large private waste companies are responsible for collection waste and treatment 
of  recovered  wood.  Leading  electricity  companies  and  energy  suppliers  consume 
recovered wood in CHP plants. Local, municipal energy suppliers and private investors 
industry  use 
operate  biomass  power  plants  also.  The 
untreated recycled  wood  for  particle  board  and  use  treated  recovered  wood  chips  for 
their own power plants. Compared to supply, the demand, has been slowly increasing 

local  particle  board 

April 2016 15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

over  time  but  there  has  not  been  shortages  because  of  imports  to  domestic  market. 
Increasing  demand  has  caused  a  general  price  increase  of  recovered  wood  in 
Germany. 

In Finland a significant proportion of the woody biomass is exported to other countries 
as  products  so  the  recycling  of  wood  would  occur  in  other  markets.  This  means  that 
the development of recycled wood is likely to be relatively small in comparison to total 
production  of  harvested  wood  products.  The  amount  of  wood  which  goes  to  landfill 
disposal is negligible (Sokka et al. 2015). 

Overview of supply and consumption patterns in the three countries 

Germany  and  Finland  are  countries  with  large  forest  areas  and  established  forest 
industry. As a result established supply chains benefit the use of wood for energy. The 
availability of inexpensive raw material has been an essential factor contributing to the 
development of industrial scale wood energy utilization in countries with a traditionally 
strong  forest  industry  sector.  The  roundwood  consumption  of  sawmilling  industries 
contribute to the availability of industrial by-products as well as forest chips produced 
from  tops  and  branches  from  final  fellings.  This  means  also  that  the  development  of 
the wood fuel market is vulnerable to fluctuations in the sawmilling industry. Italy also 
has a large forest area but as a large amount of this is unmanaged, inaccessible and 
of  low  productivity  there  are  greater  challenges  in  bringing  wood  energy  to  market. 
The  lack  of  established  forest  industry  supply  chains  also  represents  a  barrier  to 
increased  extraction  of  the  resource  particularly  along  the  regions  surrounding  the 
forests of the Apennines.  

Germany and Finland are major consumers of firewood. These countries have a strong 
tradition of household wood fuel consumption, especially in rural areas with abundant 
resources of wood not meeting quality requirements of industrial utilization and freely 
available for forest owners. It is difficult to acquire accurate information on this type of 
consumption. 

Forest chips represent a significant local resource for heat and electricity production in 
areas with large forest resources, often located in areas with cold climate and/or high 
altitude  and  decentralized  space  heating  infrastructure.  Finland  and  Germany  have  a 
network  of  centralized  heat  and  power  production  facilities  to  which  the  majority  of 
houses are connected. Larger facilities enable the use of lower quality forest chips with 
variable chip size and moisture content.  

In  terms  of  international  trade  of  biomass,  forest  chips  have  less  significance  due  to 
their relatively high moisture content, low density and challenges in long term storage. 
Currently  three  of  the  four  largest  consumers  of  forest  chips  in  the  EU  are  Germany 
(9.0 million m³/a), Finland (7.5 million m³/a) and Italy (6.3 million m³/a). In Finland 
the  national  targets  of  renewable  energy  and  related  investments  to  district  heating 
applications utilizing forest chips have been driving the increasing trend of forest chip 
consumption. 

Germany  is  the  largest  supplier  of  industrial  by-products,  producing  approximately 
19.3  million  m³/a  of  wood  chips  and  sawdust.  Finland  is  also  a  major  supplier  (9.0 
million m³/a). Major suppliers of industrial by-products are also major consumers.  In 
Finland  major  volumes  of  wood  chips  are  used  in  pulp  production,  whereas  Germany 
uses large shares of industrial by-products in wood based panels manufacturing.  

In Finland, despite the large forest resource, wood pellet production has not gained a 
strong position in domestic markets. In Finland the export oriented wood pellet sector 

April 2016 16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

has lower wood paying capability in comparison to the strong pulp industry sector. The 
biggest  wood  pellet  consuming  countries  include  Germany  (1.7  million  tonnes),  and 
Italy  (1.4  million  tonnes).  In  Germany  the  wood  pellet  market  is  dominated  by 
consumption  in  the  residential  heating  segment.  Besides  the  consumption  of 
domestically produced residential wood pellets, Germany imports major volumes from 
East-European  countries.  Italy  is  one  of  the  biggest  pellet  importers  within  the  EU 
internal markets importing 1.1 million tonnes in 2013. 

Black  liquor  is  the  waste  product  formed  when  industrial  pulpwood  is  digested  into 
paper  pulp.  Black  liquor  is  produced  only  as  a  result  of  pulp  production  from  virgin 
pulpwood  sources,  and  used  as  a  feedstock  for  energy  production  in  the  pulpmills  to 
such extent that pulpmills are usually self-sufficient in their energy consumption. The 
two biggest producers and consumers, Sweden and Finland, contribute almost 60% of 
the  total  black  liquor  consumption  in  the  EU.  This  is  largely  due  to  that  the  share  of 
virgin wood raw material is the highest in these countries.  

Recovered  wood  has  a  very  positive  image  and  is  used  for  energy  production 
especially  in  Germany.  However,  lack  of  effective  and  established  collection  and 
sorting systems is preventing its more large-scale utilization. Major producers of paper 
and  cardboard  waste  include  Germany  (8  million  tonnes),  and  Italy  (5.3  million 
tonnes).  This  amount  is  strongly  correlated  with  population  size.  The  relatively 
balanced import-export in Germany is largely related to national policy schemes which 
favour  different  streams  of  waste  wood.  The  German  renewable  electricity  feed-in 
scheme  has  provided  strong  incentives  for  the  combustion  of  clean  (non-treated) 
recovered  wood.  Mantau  et  al.  2014  analysed  the  resource  mix  in  biomass  power 
plants of greater than 1MW and found that 36.8% of the total is post-consumer wood. 

April 2016 17 

 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Policy analysis 

Policy methodology 
The purpose of the case studies is to review the present situation and policy action in 
three  Member  States  to  understand  how  national  action  might  impact  or  alter  the 
outputs of the modelling analysis, for example, this might include: 

changing the distribution of biomass use across sectors of the bioeconomy; 

- 
-  promoting non energy uses of biomass in the bioeconomy; 
- 
changing planned usage of biomass in the energy sector; 
- 
increasing  competition  with  the  energy  sector  by  promoting  for  example 
advanced biofuels over solid biomass uses; or  
changing the availability of bioresources on the market place i.e. impacting on 
the  availability  of  forest  biomass,  forest  or  agricultural  residues  or  availability 
of wastes 

- 

By  policy  we  don’t  only  mean  legislative  measures  but  all  policy  interventions  and 
supports.  

The intention was to provide a consistent record of the policies in place that will drive 
or  impact  on  uptake  of  bioenergy  specifically  from  solid  and  gaseous  sources  within 
Finland, Germany and Italy. This might be highly targeted policies for bioenergy use in 
electricity  or  heating  or  it  may  also  be  wider  policies  promoting  action,  such  as 
bioeconomy  strategies  etc.  The  intention  was  to  identify  what  are  the  key  policy 
measures  now  and  how  might  these  evolve  up  to  2030.  In  so  doing  this  should 
provide  a  record  of  the  policies,  legislative  and  fiscal  actions  etc.  of  relevance  to  the 
bioeconomy more widely. Given the future looking purpose it is important to highlight 
both  measures  that  are  currently  binding  and  more  strategic  policy  documents  that 
might  indicate  future  direction.  For  federal  nations  the  focus  was  on  national  action, 
however, when considering future direction if any evidence emerges from key regions 
e.g. in terms of leadership, these were noted. 

Three categories of policies that exert particular pressures on the development of the 
bioenergy sector were investigated: 

1.  Policies that will directly drive or impact on the uptake of bioenergy from solid 
and  gaseous  sources,  this  might  be  national  targets,  subtargets  linked  to 
renewable energy plans, incentives such as feed-in tariffs. 

2.  Policies that will impact on the nature or extent of the feedstock base whether 
this be availability from forestry systems, waste or residue production and use. 
This  might  include  policies  that  encompass  sustainability  criteria  to  actively 
promote and conversely dissuade use of certain feedstocks.  

3.  Policies that will have a wider impact on the use of the biomass resource base 
including  competing  uses i.e.  expansion  in  advanced  biofuel  production, 
promotion  of  material  uses,  shifts  in  waste  policies,  promotion  of  the  wider 
bioeconomy and alternative uses. 

April 2016 18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Policy review - Finland 
Annex  I  sets  out  in  detail  the  full  list  of  policies  considered  to  impact  on 
bioenergy  within  the  Finnish  context,  their  coverage  and  impacts.  The 
following  text  represents  a  summary  of  the  key  measures  and  messages 
developed from the detailed listings within the Annex I tables. The full titles 
and references for all the national policies set out in the policy review can be 
found in the detailed supporting tables in Annex I.  

National policy directly driving or impacting on the uptake of bioenergy 

Finland  has  a  number  of  national  policy  papers  that  define  its  strategy  towards 
meeting its renewable energy targets. Finland’s National Climate and Energy Strategy 
(2013) includes approaches to delivering Finland’s targets set out at EU in relation to 
the  reduction  of  emissions,  promotion  of  renewable  energy,  and  enhancing  the 
efficiency of energy consumption; these have all required the enactment of a number 
of  climate and energy  policy measures. The overall headline target is to increase the 
use  of  renewable  energy  to  25%  of  final  energy  consumption  by  2015  and  38%  by 
2020. 

Earlier  policy  papers  have  laid  out  ambitions  in  reference  to  energy  and  climate 
targets,  such  as  Government  Foresight  Report  on  Long-term  Climate  and  Energy 
Policy  (2009).  The  Energy  and  Climate  Roadmap  2050  (2014)  provides  a  long-term 
strategy paper mapping Finland’s pathway towards a practically carbon neutral society 
by  2050.  This  paper  emphasises  the  increasing  role  which  biomass  will  play  in 
generating  heat  and  electricity,  but  also  the  complications  which  Finland  will  face, 
particularly  as  the  use  of  wood  biomass  cannot  be  the  source  of  all  of  Finland’s 
renewable energy requirements.  

Evidently  Finland  already  has  an  established  renewables  (including  significant 
hydropower)  and  bioenergy  sector,  with  a  clear  emphasis  on  forestry  biomass.  The 
majority of Finland’s bioenergy – 97.5 per cent in 2012 – is produced from wood and 
wood-based residues such as black liquor, bark, sawdust and other industrial residues 
(equating  to  56  TWh  i.e.  97.5  per  cent  of  biomass  used  for  energy.  Wood  based 
energy  accounted  for  approximately  20  per  cent  of  energy  consumption  in  2012).  In 
contrast  agricultural  biomass  plays  a  relatively  less  prominent  role,  and  in  2012 
accounted only for approximately 1.5 TWh or 2.5 per cent of the bioenergy use. Waste 
based  bioenergy  sources  are  limited  but  are  increasing.  An  additional  push  towards 
wood  based  bioenergy  has  also  been  experienced  as  a  consequence  of  increasing 
taxation on the use of peat as an energy source, driving a shift in use patterns.  

A feed-in tariff and a number of subsidies support the uptake of renewables including 
biomass.  Finland’s  Act  on  Production  Subsidy  for  Electricity  from  Renewable  Energy 
Sources  (2010)  created  Finland’s  feed-in  tariff  for  power  plants  powered  by  wind, 
biogas, and wood based fuels. The system guarantees a tariff for an approved power 
plant  for  a  maximum  of  12  years.  The  subsidy  is  based  on  the  amount  of  energy 
produced  and  a  price  determined  by  the  difference  between  the  target  price  and  the 
market price of the average of the previous three months. An additional feed-in tariff 
is paid if the heat produced by wood or biogas based plants is utilised and if the plant 
meets a number of additional standards.  

As  well  as  the  feed-in  tariff  Finland  offers  a  number  of  investment  support 
programmes  to  expand  bioenergy  capacity.  The  schemes  offered  by  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture and Forestry, and Ministry of Employment and the Economy offer up to 40 
per  cent  of  investment  for  some  renewable  energy  technology.  A  number  of  other 

April 2016 19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

support schemes are in place for small scale projects for instance promoting biogas on 
farms  or  building  renovations  to  improve  efficiency.  Most  of  these  schemes  are 
covered in Finland’s NREAP (2014) 

National policy impacting on the nature or extent of the feedstock base 

The Energy and Climate Roadmap 2050 estimates that Finland could more than double 
its use of wood chips without compromising sustainable felling rates. Finland also aims 
to gain 25TWh of electricity and heat from wood chips in 2020. Finland anticipates that 
in  order  to  meet  the  EU’s  2030  energy  and  climate  package  targets  non-emission 
trading  sectors  would  require  a  considerable  amount  of  biofuels  for  mobility  and 
machinery.  The  Climate  and  Energy  Roadmap  2050  suggests  that  this  would 
necessitate  a  redirection  of  wood  towards  biofuel  production,  and  consequently 
competition  and  even  shortages  of  forest  biomass  for  wider  heat  and  power 
production.  

For  this  reason  the  Finnish  government  calls  for  a  number  of  alterative  biomass 
feedstocks  to  be  explored,  such  as  pulpwood  currently  being  grown  for  the  paper 
industry and importing biomass from overseas. They suggest the farmers can produce 
energy from agricultural biomass, such as field residues and manure for their own use 
and resale to the grid; such uses are included in subsidies covered by the NREAP. 

There  are  ongoing  discussions  regarding  the  climate  neutrality  and  sustainability  of 
using biomass for energy, particularly forest based biomass. However, the Energy and 
Climate  Roadmap  2050  argues  that  as  Finland  has  a  unique  situation  in  terms  of  its 
forest  industry  it  must  play  a  role  in  influencing  any  impacts  such  discussions  may 
have on EU legislation, and their potential consequences for using forest biomass as a 
central  part  of  renewable  energy  production.  17.6  million ha  of  forest  are  certified  in 
Finland with 95% of production forest certified under the Finnish PEFC system. 

the  government  has  no  specific  binding  sustainability  scheme 

Whilst  Finland  has  a  national  Act  on  the  Sustainability  of  Biofuels  and  Bioliquids 
(2011), 
for 
solid/gaseous  biomass.  Although  the  Commission  published  a  report  on  the 
sustainable  use  of  solid  and  gaseous  biomass  sources  in  electricity,  heating  and 
cooling  (COM(2010)11),  these  are  non-binding  and  member  states  are  free  to  put  in 
place  their  own  national  schemes.  Having  said  this,  within  its  forestry  legislation  the 
Finnish Government has a number of acts in relation to bioenergy production. 

The  Forest  Act  (2014)  is  Finland’s  main  policy  determining  how  forests  can  be 
managed.  In  2014  the  Finnish  government  made  a  number  of  amendments  to  its 
extensive forestry legislation. The new Forest Act (2014) increases the freedom which 
forest  owners  have  in  managing  their  resources,  and  reduces  the  complexity  of 
forestry regulations. The Forest Act contains recommendations for timber and energy 
wood  harvesting,  including  environmental  considerations.  A  new  Forest  Damages  Act 
(2014)  which  aims  to  improve  the  health  of  forests  and  prevent  fungal  and  insect 
damage, reduces the time limit within which felled wood should be removed from the 
forest.  Further  policies  such  as  the  Law  for  Financing  Sustainable  Forestry  and  the 
Nature  Conservation  Act  further  develop  forestry  management  laws  in  relation  to 
bioenergy. 

The Forest Act (2014) allows many different types of cuttings (a range of age and size 
classes),  but  it  does  not  regulate  the  use  of  the  extracted  timber.  The  fellings  are 
normally  either  conducted  in  a  package  deal  where  the  industry  purchases  all  the 
timber  from  the  site  and  uses  the  less  valuable  assortments  for  energy  (this  is  the 
dominant  way  and  called  “pystykauppa”,  or  the  cutting  can  be  done  by  the  forest 

April 2016 20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

owner and he can sell (or use himself) different sortiments to different users, e.g. to a 
sawmill and to a local combustion plant (=hankintakauppa). 

National  policy  with  wider  implications  for  the  use  of  the  biomass  resource 
base 

The  Finnish  Bioeconomy  Strategy  (2014)  highlights  Finland’s  commitment  to  an 
expansion  of  the  use  of  biomass  as  an  opportunity  for  growth,  job  creation  and 
reaching  its  climate  and  energy  targets.  The  paper  aims  to  increase  the  size  of  the 
Finnish bioeconomy  from EUR 60 billion to 100 billion by 2025. As well as expanding 
the  use  of  Finland’s  forest  resources  in  the  bioenergy  sector,  the  strategy  also 
highlights  a  number  of  competing  uses  that  will  become  increasingly  relevant  in  the 
future.  

The Finnish Government runs a number of Research Programmes in order to support 
its  bioenergy  sector.  For  instance,  one  study  examines  the  potential  to  replace  coal 
with biomass in power plants (2011), another, Forest Energy 2020 (2012-2016), looks 
at  maximising  on  the  forestry  value  chain.  Other  research  programmes  exist  to 
support bioeconomy, and low carbon energy pathways.  

Research  programmes  are  also  exploring  competing  uses  to  bioenergy.  For  instance 
TEKES,  The  Finnish  Funding  Agency  for  Technology  and  Innovation,  supported 
BioRefine  (2011)  exploring  value  added  biobased  products.  This  programme 
considered  energy  production  as  a  last  stage  in  cascades  of  potential  biomass  uses. 
Bio-fuels  based  on  wood  products,  particularly  oils  based  on  pyrolysis  as  well  as  the 
generation  of  pine  oil  based  second  generation  biodiesels  are  all  covered  by  Finnish 
research  programmes,  which  are  already  underway.  Likewise,  a  number  of  Finnish 
chemical and material companies already consider bio-based raw materials as central 
to their resources base.  

Finland has legislated to increase the role of biofuel within its transport and industrial 
sectors. The Act of the Promotion of the Use of Biofuels for Transport (2007) promotes 
the use of biofuels in the transport sector. It states the distributors of transport fuels 
must include biofuels within their distribution. At least 6 per cent of energy content of 
petrol and diesel must stem from biofuels. In 2015 this will increase to 8 per cent. A 
reform  of  the  Energy  Tax  in  2011  created  additional  incentives  for  certain  biofuel 
usage. Biofuels are subject to an energy tax made up of a tax on their energy content, 
a carbon dioxide tax, and a stockpile fee. Certain types of biofuels, particularly those 
produced from wastes, residues and non-food cellulose material, are exempt from the 
carbon dioxide element of the tax (Tulli customs, 2011).1 

Policy review - Germany 
Annex  II  sets  out  in  detail  the  full  list  of  policies  considered  to  impact  on 
bioenergy  within  the  German  context,  their  coverage  and  impacts.  The 
following  text  represents  a  summary  of  the  key  measures  and  messages 
developed from the detailed listings within the Annex II tables. The full titles 
and references for all the national policies set out in the policy review can be 
found in the detailed supporting tables in Annex II.  

1  Tulli  customs  (2015)  Excise  Taxation  Customer  Bulletin  21.  May  2015,  Table  1,  pp. 
2-3 
http://www.tulli.fi/en/finnish_customs/publications/excise_tax/excise_taxation/021.pd
f 

April 2016 21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Recebio: Task 5 

National policy directly driving or impacting on the uptake of bioenergy 

Germany has a number of national level policies that promote directly or implicitly the 
uptake  of  bioenergy.  The  Energy  Concept  (BMWi  2010)  has  laid  out  measurable 
criteria  for  the  country’s  Energiewende.  This  overarching  strategy  paper  relates 
directly to the European Commission’s Climate and Energy Package (COM (2008) 30); 
it  specifies  that  renewables  are  to  account  for  at  least  18%  of  gross  final  energy 
consumption  by  2020  and  60%  by  2050  across  all  sectors.  It  generally  foresees  an 
increase in the use of biomass in Germany’s energy mix, but is also explicit regarding 
the limitations of biomass, particularly in relation to competition with food and issues 
of  sustainability.  The  National  Biomass  Action  Plan  (2009)  compliments  the  EU 
Biomass  Action  Plan  (COM(2005)628)  as  well  as  the  Energy  Concept,  and  quantified 
the biomass’ share in meeting renewable energy targets. Germany has the ambition to 
increase the bioenergy’s share of primary energy consumption to 11% by 2020.  

Two  Federal  policies,  the  Renewable  Energy  Sources  Act  (EEG  2014)  and  the 
Renewable  Energy  Heat  Act  (EEWärmeG  2014)  transcribe  Germany’s  renewable 
energy  ambitions  into  national  law.  According  to  Section  1  para.  2  (EEG),  renewable 
energy shall account for 40% to 45% of the share in the gross electricity consumption 
by  2025,  55%  to  60%  by  2035  and  for  80%  by  2050.  Currently  nearly  30%  of 
Germany’s  electricity  is  produced  from  renewable  sources,  making it  one  of  Europe’s 
leaders in this respect. 

in  August  2014.  The  original  EEG 

The  EEG  was  first  established  in  2000,  and  has  had  several  revisions,  being  most 
the  1991 
recently  updated 
Stromeinspeisungsgesetz,  which  established  Germany’s 
for 
renewable  energy.  Germany’s  feed-in-tariff  infrastructure  is  amongst  the  most 
developed in Europe. Underpinning this system are three features, which are unique to 
Germany.  

feed-in  tariff 

replaced 

first 

1 - Differentiated price guarantees 
The  government  guarantees  for  20  years  payment  for  the  energy  generated  from  a 
renewable energy plant. Previously the price for this energy (ct/kWh) was defined by a 
fixed  feed-in-tariff,  today  the  price  is  determined  by  a  market  system  which  adjusts 
the  price  dependent  on  a  number  of  variables  (renewable  source,  capacity,  payment 
obligations  to  grid  operators,  etc.).  The  EEG  provides  a  pathway  for  growth  for 
particular  renewable  energy  sources.  It  is  notable  that  Germany  has  reduced  its 
emphasis  on  biomass  in  the  most  recent  EEG,  the  annual  growth  corridor  target  for 
Biomass  is  100  MW  compared  to  2500  MW  for  onshore  wind  and  2500  MW  for  solar 
power. 

2 – Payment of a surcharge 
The payment system is entirely funded by EEG-Umlage or surcharge. This surcharge is 
a set value added to all energy bought from the grid (ct/kWh). Through the Besondere 
Ausgleichsregelung  (special  equalisation  scheme)  some  energy  intensive  industries 
and railways have access to reductions of the EEG-Umlage. 

3 – Decreasing tariff level 
Germany  regularly  decreases  the  feed-in  tariff  in  order  to  exert  pressure  on  energy 
generators,  technology  manufacturers  and  to  promote  innovation.  This  means  that 
whilst remuneration remains constant for 20 years, the more recent an installation the 
lower the support available is to the operator. 

A  separate  law,  the  Combined  Heat  and  Power  Act  (KWKG  2009),  places  regulations 
on  the  construction  and  management  of  CHP  generators.  It  simultaneously  obliges 

April 2016 22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

grid operators to provide a connection from their plant to the grid, and to accept their 
energy. In addition grid operators must pay those operating CHP plants an additional 
surcharge for the energy they generate. This surcharge is dependent on the category 
of CHP plant. 

The second federal act, the EEWärmeG, promotes the increase of heat (as opposed to 
electricity)  generated  from  renewable  energy  to  14%  by  2020.  In  comparison  to  the 
EEG its targets are both more conservative and place a greater emphasis on biomass. 
Whilst nearly half of domestic energy use in Germany goes towards heating only 6% 
of this comes from renewable sources, mostly from wood. 

The  EEWärmeG  prescribes  regulations  for  new  buildings  and  retrofits  in  terms  of  the 
percentage of heating energy that must be derived from renewable sources, including 
bioenergy.  In  parallel  EEWärmeG  also  founded  the  Marktanreizprogramm  (Market 
Incentive  Program),  this  provides  financial  support  for  buildings  that  incorporate 
renewable  energy  generation.  A  certain  biomass  infrastructure  is  covered,  including 
automatically  fed  biomass  combustion,  low  emission  wood  gasification,  and  biogas 
pipelines,  covering  up  to  30%  of  investment  costs.  Between  2009  and  2012  the 
Marktanreizprogramm made EUR 500 million of investment available. 

National policy impacting on the nature or extent of the feedstock base 

A  number  of  policies  impact  on  the  availability  of  biomass  as  a  feedstock.  Forests 
make  up  Germany’s  most  significant  biomass  resource  base.  Whilst  forest  cover  in 
Germany has increased over recent decades, consumption of wood has also increased. 
Currently 1/3 of the annual cut from German forests is consumed as energy for heat 
and power generation. German forestry management practices are multifunctional and 
are based on sustainable forest management (SFM), but in this sense are non-binding. 
Increasingly forest certification systems are being applied, in particular PEFC2 (around 
60%  of  forest)  and  FSC3  (around  5%  of  forest).  Federal  Law  including  the  National 
Forest  Act  (Bundeswaldgesetz)  and  the  National  Act  on  Nature  Conservation 
(BNatSchG)  impact  on  the  forest  biomass,  particularly in  areas  with  special  status  or 
state owned land.  

The Forestry Strategy 2020 (2011) anticipates an increased competition for wood as a 
feedstock.  It  also  warns  of  the  dangers  of  an  increasingly  intensive  use  of  forest 
biomass, for instance the risks of nutrient depletion following full tree harvesting (the 
use of timber, bark and crown). 

Since  2013  the  Federal  ministry  for  agriculture  and  for  the  environment  have  also 
operated  the  Waldklimafonds  (Forest  Climate  Fund),  which  provides  measures  and 
funding to promote the role of forests in both mitigating through sequestration, as well 
as adapting to climate change. The latter could further reduce the availability of wood 
as a feedstock. 

In  line  with  the  RED,  Germany  implemented  sustainability  criteria  for  biofuels  and 
bioliquids. These  criteria apply for all biomass  used in the transport sector and liquid 
biofuels used for heat and power production under the EEG.  

Wider Federal level initiatives further influence the use of the biomass resource base. 
For  example  the  BMELV  (Federal  Ministry  for  Food,  Agriculture  and  Consumer 

2 Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification 
3 Forest Stewardship Council 

April 2016 23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Recebio: Task 5 

Production)  has  established,  INRO  (Initiative  Sustainable  Provision  of  Raw  Materials 
for the Material Use of Biomass) a voluntary scheme that applies the same ecological 
and social criteria to material (rather than energy) uses of biomass.  

In  2014  Germany  Climate  Action  Program  requiring  action  from  all  sectors  to  meet 
goals  up  to  2020.  This  included  the  proposed  amendment  the  Fertiliser  Application 
Ordinance  (Düngeverordnung)  and  increasing  the  share  of  organic  farming.  It  also 
sets out that  conserving permanent grassland and protecting moorland  can also help 
protect the climate. Such measures may limit land use or the intensity of land use. 

National  policy  with  wider  implications  for  the  use  of  the  biomass  resource 
base 

Research  agendas  and  funding  programmes  could  help  to  shape  the  future  of 
Germany’s  bioeconomy  (including  the  National  Strategy  for  the  Bioeconomy  (2013) 
and the National Research Strategy for the Bioeconomy 2030 (2010)), and hence the 
way  in  which  biomass  is  used  and  made  available  for  energy  production.  Many 
research  programmes  continue  to  promote  the  use  of  biomass  for  generating  energy 
and finding innovative ways for integrating bioenergy into Germany’s energy mix. 

For  instance  Germany  has  become  a  global  leader  in  the  field  of  carbon  capture  and 
storage.  The  CCS  Act  (Gesetz  zur  Demonstration  und  Anwendung  von  Technologien 
zur Abscheidung, zum Transport und zur dauerhaften Speicherung von Kohlendioxid –
KSpG 2012) lays out guidelines for the sustainable use of CCS including in relation to 
bioenergy production. Two of the twelve EU-wide CCS demonstration projects eligible 
for  funding  are  expected  to  be  built  in  Germany  by  2020,  providing  permanent  CO2 
storage.  A  storage  project  for  industrial  biomass  CO2  emissions  is  also  planned.  The 
success  of  such  demonstration  projects  could  encourage  the  use  of  bioenergy  in  the 
future, averting concerns over climate impacts. 

Biomass  can  be  used  for  solid  and  gaseous  energy  solutions,  and  alternatively  for 
biofuels or to deliver biomaterials and products. These alternative uses are also being 
promoted  in  Germany,  alongside  bioenergy.  Germany  has  an  established  policy 
framework  in  place  to  support  biofuels  in  the  mobility  sector.  The  aforementioned 
National  Biomass  Action  Plan  has  the  goal  to  increase  the  share  of  biofuels  to  12 
percent of overall fuel consumption by 2020. As of 1 January 2015 a carbon intensity 
target  was  intended  to  replace  a  blending  target  for  biofuels  to  deliver  a  6%  level  of 
emission reduction in a staggered way by 2020 (in line with the Fuel Quality Directive 
requirements  set  out  in  EU  Directive  2009/30/EC).  The  Mobility  and  Fuels  Strategy 
(MFS 2013) sets the agenda for an expansion in the biofuel capacity. Whilst oil based 
fuels will continue to dominate the market in the medium term biofuels and a need to 
expand alternatives are seen as a priority. Federally established research facilities like 
the Fraunhofer CBP are generating innovative research in the field of biofuels. Likewise 
federal  initiatives  like  Aus  Natur  Gemacht  (Made  from  Nature)  are  providing  funding 
for research into innovative material uses for biomass.  

Changing  attitudes  towards  material  uses,  particularly  waste  management  strategies 
will also impact upon the availability of biomass. Increasingly high rates of recycling in 
Germany coupled to a growing legislative framework on waste, resource efficiency and 
the  circular  economy,  such  as  the  Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz  (2012),  reflect  changing 
agendas  and  attitudes  towards  waste.  This  both  promotes  higher  levels  of  material 
recycling  but  also  the  prevention  of  waste  generation  potentially  impacting  on  the 
energy resource base available or the nature of the waste available for use as energy. 

April 2016 24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Policy review - Italy 
Annex  III  sets  out  in  detail  the  full  list  of  policies  considered  to  impact  on 
bioenergy  within  the  Italian  context,  their  coverage  and  impacts.  The 
following  text  represents  a  summary  of  the  key  measures  and  messages 
developed  from  the  detailed  listings  within  the  Annex  III  tables.  The  full 
titles  and  references  for  all  the  national  policies  set  out  in  the  policy  review 
can be found in the detailed supporting tables in Annex III.  

National policy directly driving or impacting on the uptake of bioenergy 

Italy  has  a  number  of  national  policies,  legislative  measures  and  fiscal  incentives  in 
place  to  promote  the  production  and  use  of  bioenergy.  The  National  Plan  for 
Renewable  Energy  Sources  (NPRES)  (2010)  implements  the  targets  set  out  in  the 
Renewable Energy Directive (RED 2009/28/EC) to 2020. The plan establishes a set of 
measures  for  the  achievement  of  Italy's  17  per  cent  target  from  renewable  energy 
sources (RES). Besides solar energy, biomass is expected to have a key role amongst 
the  renewables  contributing  19  per  cent  to  total  RES  in  the  electricity  sector  and  54 
per  cent  in  the  heating  and  cooling  sectors  by  2020.  The  plan  attributes  a  strategic 
role to agro-forestry ligno-cellulosic biomass in meeting the target for the heating and 
cooling  sectors.  According  to  these  objectives,  the  total  energy  from  biomass  should 
increase three-fold by 2020 compared with 2010. 

Figure 5.2.1: Final consumption of energy from renewable sources in Italy in 2020 

The  National  Energy  Strategy  (NES)  (2013)  provides  a  long-term  framework  for 
energy  policies  in  Italy,  going  beyond  the  objective  established  by  the  NPRES  and 
aiming,  amongst  other  objectives,  to  achieve  a  20  per  cent  target  for  renewable 
energy  sources  in  2020.  This  is  foreseen  to  be  achieved  through  the  replacement  of 
the  existing  plants  fueled  by  conventional  fuels  with  new  installations  using  RES, 
including  bioenergy.  Agro-forestry  biomass  is  largely  promoted  with  the  aim  to 
become  the  primary  source  of  energy  in  the  heating  and  cooling  sectors,  in line  with 
the National Action Plan for reducing the level of emissions of Greenhouse Gases (NAP 

April 2016 25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

for GHG emission reduction) (2013). Measures assessing the potential use of marginal 
land for energy purposes are also envisaged. 

The NAP for GHG emission reduction fits within the framework of the EU Energy Road 
Map  to  2050  (COM(2011)885)  and  provides  a  strategic  direction  towards  the 
decarbonisation  of  the  Italian  economy  through  a  combination  of  policies  and 
measures in a variety of key areas, i.e. energy, industry, transport, agriculture. In this 
context, a strategy for the exploitation of forests and of land devoted to agriculture is 
set  up  with  the  objectives  to  decrease  CO2  emissions  and  produce  biomass  for 
bioenergy and second-generation biofuels. 

The Sector Plan for Bioenergy (2014) defines, within the bioenergy sector, the role of 
agro-forestry biomass (including waste and residues) in the production of energy and 
with regards to the wider objectives assigned to RES by 2020. Primary importance is 
given to the use  of  crop and livestock waste and residues, as well as processed food 
products. These objectives, along with those defined in NES, were already included in 
the  Decree  law  (n.  28/2011)  implementing  Directive  29/2008/EC  (RED)  on  the 
promotion of renewable energy sources. 

The incentive included in the Sector Plan for Bioenergy is to promote the following: 

  The use of waste and by-products; 
  The  production  of  biogas  from  livestock  waste  or  by-products  from 

agriculture, agro-food, farming and forestry activities; 

  Products from non-food crops. 

Investments  on  biomass  plants,  including  those  using  biodegradable  waste,  are 
incentivized  to  a  maximum  of  80  per  cent  for  partial  refurbishing  and  a  maximum  of 
90 per cent for total refurbishing. 

Tax  benefits  for  district  heating  from  biomass  sources  based  on  a  number  of 
principles. The end users who purchase energy from biomass fueled heating networks 
based  in  certain  municipalities  are  entitled  to  a  tax  deduction,  as  well  as  a  one-off 
reduction on connection costs. Similarly, the Presidential Decree on bio methane of 5 
December 2013  establishes a  system of incentives for the production of bio methane 
in  cogeneration  plants  to  be  used  in  transport  or  injected  into  the  national  grid.  For 
this system to be effective, however, additional decrees will be needed and are likely 
to be approved in 2015. 

The Finance Act (2008) promotes the production of electricity from renewable sources, 
including biomass, by assigning ‘green certificates’ to producers. Additionally, a feed-
in tariff applies to biomass (excluding liquid biofuels) and biogas plants, not exceeding 
1  MW.  It  also  promotes  more  generally  the  production  of  renewable  energy  by 
agricultural  enterprises.  The  Ministerial  Decree  (n.  18/2008)  establishes  a  system  of 
coefficients  incentivizing  or  discouraging  the  use  of  certain  raw  materials.  As  to 
biomass,  the  system  incentivizes  the  use  of  biogenic  waste  (coefficient  1.3), 
agriculture and forestry products (coefficient 1.3), and biomass produced within 70 km 
from  the  processing  plant  (coefficient  1.8).  This  measure  is  intended  to  increase  the 
availability  of  those  materials  as  a  feedstock.  Decree  Law  (n.  79/1999)  introduced  a 
system of Green Certificates, valid annually and tradable on the market, which attest 
the production of electricity from renewable sources, including biomass. 

Finally, the Ministerial Decree of 28 December 2012 introduced incentives for the use 
of  biomass  for  the  production  of  renewable  energy  for  heat  through  two  systems 
called  Thermal  Account  and  Energy  Efficiency  Certificates  or  White  Certificates.  The 
first  has  the  aim  to  encourage  small-scale interventions  to increase  energy  efficiency 

April 2016 26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

and  the  production  of  thermal  energy  from  renewable  sources,  whereas  the  second 
sets national quantitative target for  energy savings to be complied with by electricity 
and gas companies between 2013 and 2016. 

The  ‘Thermal  account’  system  may  include  three  types  of  interventions  all  of  which 
relate  to  the  installation  of  new  heating  capacity  and/or  the  replacement  of  existing 
capacity using solid agro-forestry biomass as a feedstock.  

The  system  of  White  Certificates  or  Energy  Efficiency  Certificates  (TEE),  introduced 
into Italian law by the Ministerial Decrees of 20 July 2004, establishes that suppliers of 
electricity  and  natural  gas  annually  have  to  reach  certain  primary  energy  savings.  A 
certificate is equivalent to saving a ton of oil equivalent (TOE). As for the use of solid 
agro-forestry  biomass,  the  White  Certificate  system  provides  standard  tools  to 
evaluation the actual energy savings. 

National policy impacting on the nature or extent of the feedstock base 

Several  drivers  have  impacted  on  the  feedstock  base  available  in  Italy.  The  Sector 
Plan  for  Bioenergy  encourages  efforts  in  the  direction  of  expanding  the  plantation  of 
herbaceous or arboreal plants with short harvest cycle, i.e. short rotation coppice, and 
of  species  that  can  guarantee  a  prolonged  coverage  of  the  ground  and  have  long 
harvest  cycles.  The  National  Strategic  Plan  for  Rural  Development  2007  –  2013  goes 
in  the  same  direction  by  promoting  agricultural  policies  supporting  dedicated  energy 
production  on  marginal  land,  amongst  others,  and  the  collection  of  residues,  such  as 
straw. In addition, in order to address environmental emergencies caused by irregular 
waste management in two Italian regions, Campania and Puglia, mapping of no longer 
suitable  agricultural  land  were  undertaken  with  the  purpose  of  assigning  it  to  the 
production  of  energy  crops.  These  measures  have  the  effect  of  increasing  alternative 
feedstock sources for biofuel production. 

Decree law (n. 28/2011), implementing Directive 29/2008/EC (RED) on the promotion 
of renewable energy sources, introduces sustainability criteria for biomass used in the 
transport  sector  (biofuels)  and  for  the  production  of  electricity,  heating  and  cooling 
(bioliquids). No specific binding sustainability schemes  for  solid and gaseous biomass 
have been introduced as yet. 

Forest  biomass  is  the  largest  source  of  feedstocks  in  Italy.  The  above  mentioned 
National  Strategic  Plan  for  Rural  Development  2007  –  2013  provides  targeted 
investment  support  for  afforestation  of  agricultural land  and  non-agricultural land,  as 
well as conversion of land into forestry. These measures are aimed at enhancing forest 
management  and  at  optimizing  the  sustainable  extraction  of  forest  biomass.  The 
Framework  Programme 
for  the  Forestry  Sector  (2008)  supports  sustainable 
management  of  forests  and  provides  incentives  for  the  use  of  biomass  for  energy 
production. At present PEFC certification covers 8.6% of Italy’s forest - mostly the poplar 
plantations of the north. At the regional level, the Programmes for Rural Development 
2007–2013 include a number of measures that are directed to promote the production 
of energy from biomass. Two measures support investments in biomass power plants 
(measures 121 and 311), while others regulate the production of biomass (measures 
123 and 221): 

•  Measure 121 allows the direct financing for the purchase and / or construction 
of plants for the production of electricity and heat from biomass, not exceeding 
1 MW, This measure provides for funding up to 40% of overall investment; 

April 2016 27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

•  Measure  123  provides  remuneration  for  the  sale  of  biomass  raw  materials  by 
companies processing and / or marketing agricultural and forestry products; 

•  Measure 221 finances the afforestation of agricultural land; 
•  Measure  311 

includes  different  types  of 

interventions  aimed  at  the 
diversification  of  rural  activities,  including  measures  for  the  production  energy 
from  renewable  sources.  Such  measure  includes  the  construction  of  biomass 
plants not exceeding 1 MW, providing a maximum contribution of 200,000€. 

All  these  measures  are  to  contribute  to  increase  the  availability  of  wood  and 
agricultural products as feedstocks. 

National  policy  with  wider  implications  for  the  use  of  the  biomass  resource 
base 

A  number  of  policies  have  been  adopted  in  Italy  having  wider  implications  on  the 
biomass  resource  base.  At  strategic  level,  the  National  Plan  for  Renewable  Energy 
Sources  (NPRES)  foresees  the  possibility  of  prioritizing  non-energy  uses  of  biomass, 
although no overarching policy measures going in this direction have been adopted so 
far. 

Within  the  bioenergy  sector,  the  production  of  second  and  third  generation  biofuels 
has  been  incentivized  by  several  drivers  in  Italy.  A  memorandum  of  understanding 
(2013) signed by several ministries and a leading company aims to promote important 
projects  in  the  field  of  industrial  chemistry  from  renewable  sources,  with  the  aim  to 
the  produce  advanced  (second  and  third  generation)  biofuels.  In  October  2014,  Italy 
has  taken  the  lead  in  Europe  by  introducing  binding,  progressive  sub-targets  for 
second generation biofuels in petrol and diesel from 2018 onwards. The quotas are set 
at 1.2 per cent in 2018 and 2019, at 1.6 per cent in 2020 and 2012 and at 2 per cent 
in  2022,  and  will  presumably  drive  increasing  demand  of  those  wastes  and  residues, 
as explicitly listed by the Decree Law updating the conditions, criteria and procedures 
for  release  biofuels  and  second-generation  biofuels  (2014),  that  could  be  counted 
towards  the  targets.  The  first  power  plant  (partly)  fueled  by  waste  and  residues 
biomass, as well as dedicated energy crops, was launched in Crescentino (Province of 
Vercelli)  in  2012.  These  measures  are  predicted  to  lead  to  a  decrease  of  the  waste 
biomass resource base and to competition with other non-energy sectors. 

Although  there  is  still  no  national  policy  framework  for  the  promotion  of  ‘green 
chemistry’  and  the  bioeconomy  in  Italy,  the  Sector  Plan  for  Bioenergy  (2014) 
prioritises the creation of an inter-ministerial roundtable on ‘green chemistry’ with the 
purpose of defining strategies and opportunities for the development  of bio-products, 
as promoted by the European bioeconomy strategy. No explicit priority is given to any 
bio-products. 

Key points emerging from policy analysis  
It  is  often  difficult  to  identify  specific  policies  and  their  consequences  on  the  wider 
market  and  use  of  materials.  This  analysis  is  not  intended  to  provide  an  ex  post 
assessment  of  the  consequences  of  national  policy  mixes  but  instead  add  to 
understanding  regarding  what  trends  might  lead  to  shifts  in  the  material  availability 
and  biomass  use  and  what  trends  might  influence  future  demand  for  biomass.  Key 
policy  messages,  synthesising  points  from  all  three  Member  States  analysed,  are 
summarised in the following sections.  

April 2016 28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Policies driving uptake of bioenergy  

As  might  be  anticipated  in  all  three  Member  States  the  policies  in  place  to  promote 
renewable  energy  expansion  are  implementing  the  EU  level  targets  under  the 
Renewable Energy Directive (RED). This does not mean to say policies did not predate 
the RED or that countries would have not pursued renewable energy in the absence of 
the RED, but at present targets are determined by those set in the EU measure. In all 
three  countries  there  are  specified  proportions  of  relevant  targets  to  be  delivered  by 
bioenergy,  with  an  important  contribution  to  renewable  heat  provision  in  particular. 
Finland also has a longer term Roadmap to 2050 that emphasises the role of biomass 
in generating heat and electricity.  

As  outlined  in  the  country  resource  analysis,  Finland  and  Germany  have  established 
large-scale,  historic  industry  built  on  solid  biomass:  in  Finland  the  pulp  and  paper 
industry; and in Germany sawnwood.  This has provided an  established industry base 
upon  which  to  build,  where  by  forestry  products  and  woody  biomass  were  already 
managed  and  processed  on  an  industrial  scale  and  forests  already  utilised  and 
managed  to  provide  biomass  for  existing  industry.  Moreover,  cultural  acceptance  of 
wood based heating is high given traditional ties to forestry, the use of district heating 
plant  and  disaggregated  heating  systems  in  both  Member  States.  This,  alongside 
direct  incentives  in  the  form  of  feed-in  tariffs  in  both  Member  States,  has  promoted 
the  expansion  of  bioenergy  for  electricity  and  heating  to  meet  national  renewable 
energy  targets  and  bioenergy  ambition  within  this.  In  addition,  separate  investment 
support is also available for example in Germany for buildings that incorporate certain 
biomass infrastructure.  

In  Italy,  management  of  forestry  is  less  normalised,  with  high  levels  of  unmanaged 
woodland  on  abandoned  agricultural  land  and  inaccessible  stands.  In  the  Italian 
‘Sector  Plan  for  Bioenergy’  emphasis  is placed  on  the  role  of  agro-forestry,  alongside 
the  use  of  crop  and  livestock  waste  and  residues.  The  sector  plan  focuses  on  use  of 
wastes, biogas production and use of non-food crops. A number of incentives exist for 
biomass  production  including  a  feed-in  tariff  for  small  scale  generation  and  a  system 
of  specific  incentives  for  use  of  certain  raw  materials  including  waste  and  biomass 
produced local to a processing plant. 

In  all  three  Member  States  there  is  evidence  to  suggest  that  policies  to  promote 
bioenergy  are  having  an  impact  in  the  form  of  shifting  use  profiles  and  consumption 
patterns  for  wood  biomass.  In  Finland  renewable  energy  policy  has  been  driving 
investment  in  district  heating  using  forest/wood  chips, leading  to  a  noted  increase  in 
forest  chip  demand.  In  Germany  and  Italy,  expansion  in  the  use  and  importation  (in 
Italy’s case from the Balkans and US) of wood pellets has been noted. 

The resource overview within this report notes an increase in demand in all countries 
either resulting in a drive to import (Italy), shift consumption patterns of forest chips 
(Finland)  or  pressure  to  expand  production  of  wood  chips  to  roundwood  (Germany). 
All of these impacts could be driven by the increased demand and consequent price of 
the certain categories  of biomass as  energy use expands.  In turn this pressure could 
impact on decisions around the management of growing stock and in turn the species 
and age class distribution. 

Policies impacting on the nature of the feedstock base  

In Finland the primary feedstock base is forest biomass and at present this is primarily 
residues and wastes from the wider material based industry or less valuable classes of 
a  given  forestry  stand.  The  nature  of  the  feedstock  base  is  therefore  determined  by 
the coverage and limitations placed in forestry policies – although there are increasing 
efforts to expand alternative bioenergy production on agricultural holdings.  

April 2016 29 

 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Forests also make up Germany’s most significant biomass resource base. Whilst forest 
cover  in  Germany  has  increased  over  recent  decades,  consumption  of  wood  has  also 
increased.  The  Forestry  Strategy  2020  (2011)  anticipates  increased  competition  for 
wood as a feedstock. Concerns as to the impact of expanded use and impacts both for 
material  and  energy  uses  are  beginning  to  be  expressed  within  financial  support 
schemes and voluntary schemes for biomass use. 

In Italy there is a greater emphasis on imported wood pellets, but also on agricultural 
materials, wastes and residues. There have been active efforts under  the auspices of 
the Sector Plan for Bioenergy and National Strategic Plan for Rural Development 2007-
2013  to  expand  the  plantation  of  herbaceous  and  arboreal  plants  with  short  harvest 
cycles  i.e.  short  rotation  coppice  and  specifically  dedicated  energy  crops  of  marginal 
land  and  land  no  longer  suitable  for  agricultural  production.  In  contrast  to  Finland, 
therefore,  Italian  policies  are  actively  promoting  expansion  of  energy  crops 
specifically; although it should be noted that this also supports the active investment 
in  advanced  biofuels  taking  place  in  Italy,  not  exclusively  electricity  production  and 
heat. The National Strategic Plan also provides targeted investment for afforestation of 
agricultural and non-agricultural land. The emphasis is on increasing the availability of 
wood and agricultural products as feedstocks. 

All  three  countries  have  systems  in  place  for  ‘sustainable  forest  management’  (SFM) 
although it is beyond the scope of this analysis to  compare these in detail. However, 
neither  Finland  nor  Italy  have  detailed  guidance  on  the  sustainable  use  of  solid 
biomass for bioenergy. In Germany forestry management is multifunctional and based 
on SFM, with increasing uptake of forest certification systems. Their Forestry Strategy 
2020 (2011) anticipates increased competition for wood as a feedstock and highlights 
potential  dangers  of  increased  ‘efficiency’  of  extraction  of  forest  biomass.  There  is 
rising  concern  over  these  impacts  with  the  Federal  Ministry,  from  2013,  operating  a 
Forest Climate Fund, which provides support to promote the role of forests in climate 
mitigation  and  adaptation.  The  Federal  government  has  also  put in  place  a  voluntary 
scheme that applies environmental and social criteria  to material well as energy uses 
of  biomass.  However,  schemes  and  sustainable  management  approaches  remain 
voluntary. 

April 2016 30 

 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Model results for the case study countries 
The  results  and  analysis  presented  here  are  those  emerging  from  the  baseline 
scenario model runs. For further details of the parameters applied see work under task 
3. 

Initial state 

Feedstocks 

The GLOBIOM model framework is initialized at year 2000, and as a result, already the 
initial  year  of  this  project,  2010,  is  a  model  result.  In  other  words,  the  model  is 
initialized and calibrated to statistic for the year 2000, after which the model projects 
the development between 2000 and 2010. However, to improve on the representation 
of  specific  feedstocks  where  historical  data  is  not  available,  or  where  key-changes  in 
trends  have  occurred,  the  model  was  complemented  with  data  and  analysis  derived 
from Task 1 for year 2010. In particular, production of industrial by-products, trade of 
wood pellets, collection of fuelwood, and collection of recovered wood and waste, was 
complemented with information from Task 1. 

In should though be kept in mind that, the 2010 model outputs should not be directly 
compared  with  the  statistics  for  the  year  2010  alone  as  the  GLOBIOM  outputs  are 
representative of the development over an average of 2015-2015.  

To  analyse  the  initial  state  of  the  model,  we  here  compare  the  model  numbers  for 
2010  with  reported  statistics  in  FAOstat,  Forest  Europe  (2011,  2015)  and  the  Joint 
Wood  Energy  Enquiry  (2011).  Tables  5.3.1  and  5.3.2  show  key  production  and  trade 
figures for the three countries. It is noteworthy that the different statistical databases 
are  not  unanimous  and  that  there  are  high  uncertainties  concerning  collection  of 
specific feedstocks: the reporting practices vary between different EU Member States, 
and especially for non-traded feedstocks, such as firewood and industrial by-products, 
the  data  is  based  on  approximations  and  experts  evaluation.  For  further  information 
concerning feedstock availability and use, we refer to the Task 1 report. To explore the 
initial  state  in  the  model  in  more  detail,  historical  data  from  FAOstat  is  compared  to 
the  model  initial  state in  figures  5.3.1  to  5.3.3  for  those  feedstocks  where  long-term 
historical data is available. 

As  can  be  seen  from  Figure  5.3.1,  GLOBIOM  follow  the  same  historical  trend  as 
FAOSTAT  for  all  the  three  countries.  However,  estimates  for  industrial  roundwood 
production in 2010 are somewhat higher than those reported by FAOstat for Germany 
and Finland. For these two countries, GLOBIOM projects higher domestic production of 
industrial  roundwood  than  reported  in  the  statistics.  The  reason  for  this  is  the  global 
recession  of  2009/2010,  which  abruptly  decreased  demand  for  industrial  roundwood 
and is clearly visible in the statistics. However, the effect of the economic recession is 
not  captured  in  the  model  as  the  year  impact  of  the  recession  and  rebound  effects 
have  to  be  jointly  represented  within  the  model  framework.  The  case  of  Finland 
highlights  this,  where  the  recession  is  seen  to  have  a  clear impact  on  the  production 
valued  for  2008  and  2009,  but  where  already  in  2014  the  actual  roundwood 
production  is  in line  with  the  trend  projection  by  GLOBIOM.  The  GLOBIOM  projection 
of  domestic  roundwood  production  for  Germany  is  also  higher  than  statistics  due  to 
the  impacts  of  the  global  recession.  For  Germany,  there  was  a  clear  peak  in  the 
reported  industrial  roundwood  production  for  2000  according  to  which  the  GLOBIOM 
numbers are initialized. While the overall trend in the statistics would propose a lower 
production in the long term, it has been noted that statistics for industrial roundwood 

April 2016 31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

production  in  Germany  are  likely  to  be  an  underestimated  (cf.  Mantau  et  al.  2010a, 
who  approximate  a  20%  underestimate  in  the  statistics).  Initializing  the  model 
production figures for Germany using the relatively high value of 2000 is supported by 
industrial  material  balance  numbers,  which  suggest  a  higher  domestic  production  of 
industrial roundwood in Germany than given in the FAOstat. That the production levels 
of  industrial  roundwood  has  been  initialized  to  a  higher  level  than  FAOSTAT  may 
slightly underestimate the future production potential of wood products in Germany as 
a  higher  level  of  wood  is  already  being  harvested  for  the  domestic  forest  resources. 
Also, it may lead to a slightly  lower dependence for Germany on imported sources of 
biomass.  

The  estimates  for  recycled  wood  in  2010  is  commonly  acknowledged  to  be  highly 
uncertain  and  differs  highly  between  sources  (here,  only  recovered  wood  for  energy 
and  wood  based  panels  are  considered).  The  uncertainty  surrounding  availability  of 
recovered wood both relates to how different sources of data have been collected and 
conversion  factors  being  applied.  As  an  example,  in  the  Joint  Wood  Energy  Enquiry 
(2011),  statistics  for  recycled  wood  are  reported  in  tonnes  and  converted  into  cubic 
metres  using  the  conversion  factor  of  1.67  m3/tonne.  Forestry  Statistics  2009 
(Forestry  Commission,  2009)  instead  uses  a  conversion  factor  of  1  tonne  being 
equivalent to 2.5m3 of recycled wood.  In Task 3, the uncertainty of the statistics and 
future development of recovered wood was analysed further on the level of EU28, by 
simulating different levels of recovered wood availability. In other words, the impact of 
an increasing or decreasing future level of recovered wood was assessed. It was found 
that changes in the amount of wood recovery mostly  affected pellet imports and SRC 
production: that is, the domestic production level of semi-finished woody material was 
found  to  be  robust  to  changes  in  recovered  wood  availability.  Hence,  while  the 
differences  in  the  statistics  for  this  feedstock  are  acknowledged,  the  impact  of  the 
uncertain  statistics  is  likely  to  be  minor  for  the  estimates  of  future  production  of 
woody products. 

The figures for imports of roundwood, pellets and wood chips in Table 5.3.1 were 
extracted from the Joint Wood Energy Enquiry (2011), to compare with the GLOBIOM 
numbers  for  2010.  Germany  was  a  net  importer  of  roundwood  in  2010  (FAOstat), 
while the GLOBIOM numbers assume it a net exporter. As shown in Figure 5.3.2, the 
trend  of  roundwood  trade  in  Germany  has  changed  very  recently,  and  GLOBIOM 
instead  assumes  a  continuation  of  the  historical  trend.  While  the  difference  between 
the  model  results  and  statistics  is  notable  when  looking  at  trade  statistics,  the  total 
German  roundwood  trade  is  still  only  a  fraction  of  the  total  domestic  roundwood 
harvests, and is not likely to have a large impact on the projected future development 
in Germany. For Italy, the model predicts stable roundwood imports after 2000, while 
the  statistics  show  that  the  imports  have  turned  into  a  slight  decline.  This 
development reflects the economic recession not represented by the model, while the 
model  is  more  representative  when  looking  at  long  term  development  of  Italian 
roundwood  imports.  For  Finland,  the  net  import  of  roundwood  in  2010  is  higher  in 
GLOBIOM  than  the  statistics.  The  trade  of  roundwood  to  Finland  shows  large  yearly 
fluctuations. A strong increase in trade can be seen after 2000, followed by an abrupt 
drop in 2008 due to roundwood export tariffs introduced in Russia.  

April 2016 32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Table  5.3.1:  GLOBIOM  modelled  vs  reported  amounts  of  industrial  roundwood 
production,  recycled  wood,  and  pellets,  roundwood  and  wood  chips  net  imports  for 
Finland, Germany and Italy. (Million m3) in 2010. 

Germany 

Finland  

Italy 

Model 

Statistics 

Model  

Statistics  Model 

Statistics 

Industrial Roundwood 

Pellet imports 

55 

45 

4.2 

         0.25 

Roundwood net imports 
(FAOstat) 
Wood chip net imports 
(FAOstat) 

-2.0 

-2.4 

3.9 

-1.3 

53 

0 

9.3 

2.2 

46 

0.014 

5.8 

3.4 

4 

3.3 

5.8 

2.1 

2.6 

0 

3.2 

1.1 

Table 5.3.2: GLOBIOM recycled wood vs reported recycled wood in 2010. 

Model, 1000 m3 

EUWood, 1000 m3 * 

Germany 
12.5 

10.3 

Finland  
0.4 

1.3 

Italy 
3.5 

6.5 

No value 

JWEE (1000 m3)** 
*EUWood reports “total post-consumer wood”, which includes both recovered wood used for energy and 
material,  as  well  as  recovered  wood  that  goes  to  landfill.  In  GLOBIOM,  only  recovered  wood  used  for 
material or energy is accounted for. 
** reported in JWEE as tonnes and converted to m3 using a conversion factor of 1.67 m3/tonne as in JWEE.  

 4.5  
(2.7 tonnes) 

 1.8  
(1.1 tonnes) 

April 2016 33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure  5.3.1:  Industrial  roundwood  production  from  1980-2014  on  continuous  line 
(FAOSTAT)  and  GLOBIOM  industrial  roundwood  production  from  2000  onwards 
(hatched line). 

Figure 5.3.2: Net imports of industrial roundwood from 1980-2014 on continuous line 
(FAOSTAT)  and  GLOBIOM  net  industrial  roundwood  imports  from  2000  onwards 
(hatched line). 

April 2016 34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure  5.3.3:  Net  imports  of  wood  chips  from  1980-2014  on  continuous  line 
(FAOSTAT) and GLOBIOM net wood chips imports from 2000 onwards (hatched line). 

Semi-finished forest products 

In figures 5.3.4 to 5.3.6, the initial production values of semi-finished woody products 
from  the  model  are  compared  to  historical  development  according  to  FAOSTAT.  The 
figures  show  the  production  values  for  sawnwood,  wood-based  panel  and  pulp 
production in the case studies as these are the semi-finished wood products for which 
long-term  statistics  are  available  in  FAOSTAT.  For  all  of  these  product  classes, 
GLOBIOM  was  initiated  to  match  the  reported  production  values  of  FAOSTAT  for  the 
year  2000.  As  seen  in  the  figures  below,  the  production  levels  for  all  product 
categories and case study countries  estimated by GLOBIOM are in line with historical 
development  of  these  products.  However,  there  are  some  fluctuations  in  the  actual 
production  numbers  reported  by  FAOSTAT  between  2000  and  2014  that  are  not 
captured by the model.  

For  Italy,  sawnwood  production  (Figure  5.3.4)  in  the  GLOBIOM  results  for  2000-
2014  are  well  in  line  with  the  observed  production.  However,  sawnwood  production 
industry is relatively small in Italy. For Finland and Germany however, there are large 
fluctuations  in  the  reported  statistics,  leading  to  some  discrepancies  between  the 
model  estimates  and  the  statistics.  In  Germany,  sawnwood  production  increased 
rapidly between 2004 and 2007, to fall back over the course of one year in 2008. The 
production  recovered  somewhat  thereafter,  increasing  again  with  a  higher  rate  than 
observed  before  2004.  In  GLOBIOM,  this  fluctuation  is  not  reflected,  but  the 
sawnwood  production  is  modelled  to  continue  along  the  trend  seen  before  2004, 
leading  to  an  underestimate  of  the  production  levels  in  2010.  In  Finland,  sawnwood 
production  decreased  in  2008  as  well,  and  further  in  2009.  While  there  is  some 
recovery  of  the  production  detected  in  the  statistics  thereafter,  the  GLOBIOM  results 
expecting a small but steady growth after 2000 are still an overestimate of the actual 
levels. 

April 2016 35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure 5.3.4: Production of sawnwood in the case study countries from 1980-2014 on 
continuous line (FAOSTAT) and GLOBIOM net wood chips imports from 2000 onwards 
(hatched line). 

Wood-based  panel  production  (Figure  5.3.5)  is  partly  connected  to  sawnwood 
production,  as  particle-  and  fibreboard  industries  use  the  by-products  of  sawmills, 
wood chips and sawdust, as feedstock. Hence, the rapidly decreased production levels 
following  the  global  economic  recession  in  2008  are  clearly  shown  also  in  the 
production statistics for wood-based panels. Here, we consider plywood, particleboard 
and fibreboard within the same group to accommodate with FAOSTAT classification  – 
in  GLOBIOM.  Plywood  is  reported  separately  from  other  panels.  Historically,  panel 
production has been very stable in Italy and  Finland. In 2008, the production level in 
these  countries  decreased:  in  Finland  only  slightly,  while  in  Italy  somewhat  more 
prominently.  In  the  GLOBIOM  estimates  for  2010,  the  effect  of  the  global  economic 
recession  for  wood-based  panel  production  is  not  fully  captured  for  these  countries, 
leading  to  a  slight  overestimation  in  the  production  levels.  For  Germany,  the 
development of panel industries has historically been very positive. However, the 2008 
recession decreased the production levels considerably and the statistics show that the 
production levels are not yet fully recovered.  

April 2016 36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure  5.3.5:  Production  of  wood-based  panels  (plywood, 
fibreboard  and 
particleboard)  in  the  case  study  countries  from  1980-2014  on  continuous  line 
(FAOSTAT) and GLOBIOM net wood chips imports from 2000 onwards (hatched line). 

For wood pulp production (mechanical and chemical pulp combined) (Figure 5.3.6), 
the  model  represents  actual  development  very  well.  For  Germany,  some  small 
fluctuation  in  the  production  levels  between  2000  and  2014  can  be  seen  in  the 
statistics. However, the levels  oscillate closely to  the level predicted by GLOBIOM for 
those  years.  For  Italy  as  well,  the  GLOBIOM  estimates  for  wood  pulp  production  are 
well  in  line  with  the  reported  historical  data.  Finland  is  one  of  the  largest  wood  pulp 
producers in the EU. The impact of the 2008 economic recession is seen clearly in the 
statistics, which show a large drop in the pulp production from 2008 to 2009, caused 
by  shutdowns  of  several  of  the  pulpmills  in  the  country.  Pulp  production  has  not  yet 
fully recovered to the levels reported in the beginning of the 21st century, leading also 
to  a  discrepancy  between  the  GLOBIOM  data  for  2010  and  the  reported  statistics. 
However,  there  are  several  large-scale  pulpmills  being  built  in  Finland,  e.g.  the 
Äänekoski  biorefinery  (with  pulp  production  capacity  of  1.3  Mton)  estimated  to  be 
finished  in  2017.  With  these  ongoing  investments,  it  is  likely  that  the  GLOBIOM 
estimates  for  wood  pulp  production  is  well  in  line  with  the  actual  production  for  the 
period 2010-2020.  

April 2016 37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure  5.3.6:  Production  of  wood  pulp  (mechanical  and  chemical  pulp)  in  the  case 
study  countries  from  1980-2014  on  continuous  line  (FAOSTAT)  and  GLOBIOM  net 
wood chips imports from 2000 onwards (hatched line). 

Land use development in Finland 
For  Finland,  the  Baseline  scenario  estimates  almost  negligible  changes  in land use  to 
2050 (Figure 5.3.7). There is some unused forest taken into use, and the overall land 
use structure of the country remains dominated by forests used for wood harvests.  

Figure 5.3.7. Land use development in Finland in the Baseline scenario. 

April 2016 38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Sectoral development in Finland 
Figure 5.3.8 shows that harvested volumes in Finland remain relatively static (74 Mm3 
in 2010, compared to 76 Mm3 in 2050). However, a greater proportion of this volume 
comes from forest residues in 2050 (11.3 Mm3) compared with 2010 (6.9 Mm3). This 
is a realistic increase given the current emphasis on increasing use of forest residues 
for bioenergy. Over the same time period, the use of firewood decreases by 2.3 Mm3, 
driven  by  the  increasing  use  of  disctrict  heating,  centralized  large  scale  conversion 
units, and wood pellets (see the Task 3 report for furhter descriptions of how demand 
of  firewood  is  being  modelled).  Between  2010  and  2030,  the  total  use  of  wood  for 
energy is reduced somewhat due to improved energy efficiency, but increased demand 
for  bioenergy  turns  the  trend  into  an  increase  between  2030  and  2050.  Overall, 
GLOBIOM estimates an overall increase of wood for energy from 42 Mm3 in 2010 to 48 
Mm3  in  2050,  which  can  be  done  in  conjunction  with  an  increase  in  use  of  wood  for 
material use. 

The  timelined  wood  flows  in  Figure  5.3.8  show  some  changes  in  imports  of 
roundwood.  There  are  also  increases  in  sawnwood  outputs  and  the  use  of  industrial 
by-products  for  energy.  However,  the  most  noticeable  trend  is  the  doubling  of 
imported wood chip from 2.2 to 4.6 Mm3 between 2010 and 2050. Chips are used for 
pulp  production,  but  also  for  heating:  a  large  part  of  Finland’s  biomass  for  energy 
comes from wood chips. A majority of this import is expected outside of EU28, mainly 
from  the  former  USSR,  but  also  closer  at  hand  from  within  EU28  such  as  Latvia. 
Together with the estimated roundwood imports increase from 10 to 15 Mm3 by 2050, 
the GLOBIOM projections imply an increasing reliance on imported feedstocks to fulfill 
the  increasing  use  of  wood  for  energy.  The  analysis  therefore  suggests  that  the 
increased  demand  for  wood  could  partially  be  fulfilled  by  domestic  harvests,  but  also 
requires increases in the volumes of imported feedstocks.  

In  the  Baseline  scenario,  the  use  of  wood  for  material  production  in  Finland  stays 
relatively  constant  from  2010  onwards  or  increases  only  marginally,  with  the 
exception  of  increasing sawnwood  production  from  almost  14  Mm3  in  2010  to  almost 
16  Mm3  in  2050.  This  reflects  the  higher  demand  for  sawmill  by-products  driven  by 
increased  bioenergy  demand,  indicating  that  bioenergy  demand  supports  the 
profitability  of  sawmills.  The  large-scale  biorefineries  being  built  in  Finland  are  not 
shown  in  the  development  of  pulp industry  and,  consequently,  nor  is  black  liquor  for 
bioenergy.  If  successful,  these  investments  may  increase  the  production  of  pulp  to 
higher  levels  than  estimated  for  2030  and  2050,  and  more  importantly,  prove  more 
effective in utilizing the by-products of pulp production in energy production than the 
current technologies. 

April 2016 39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure 5.3.8. Wood flows in Finland. 

April 2016 40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Land use development in Germany  
For Germany, the most notable trend is the evolution of short rotation coppice (SRC)4 
over the 2010 to 2030 time horizon (Figure 5.3.9). Also cropland area increases from 
2010 to 2050, while forest area and other land use classes remain approximately the 
same throughout the projection period.  

Figure 5.3.9: Land use development in Germany for the Baseline scenario. 

Sectoral development in Germany  

In  Germany,  domestic  harvests  increase  from  75  Mm3  to  80  Mm3  by  2030,  and 
thereafter stagnate until 2050 (Figure 5.3.10). There is also an increase in importation 
of wood pellets from 4.2 Mm3 to 6.6 Mm3 between 2010 and 2050.  

As  was  seen  for  Finland,  the  increase  in  the  bioenergy  demand  leads  to  a  higher 
demand for industrial by-products, driving an increase in the production of sawnwood. 
The results show a moderate increase in sawnwood production from 17.4 Mm3 in 2010 
to  21.7  Mm3  in  2050.  Particleboard  production  is  an  important  sector  of  material 
production  in  Germany,  competing  of  the  same  feedstock  with  bioenergy  production 
(wood  chips  and  sawdust).  In  the  model,  we  see  that  the  increased  by-products  are 
directed to bioenergy production, while the particleboard production level is projected 
to stay constant from 2010 through 2050.  

Due  to  unreliable  data  on  the  historical  development  and  current  levels  of  recycled 
wood  use,  this  feedstock  was  held  constant  within  the  model  at  2000  levels.  To 
investigate  the  impacts  of  this  assumption,  different  levels  of  recycled  wood  were 
simulated and analysed on the EU level as part of Task 3.  The wood flow analysis for 

4 SRC is defined as poplar and willow in the model. Grasses, such as miscanthus and 
other energy perennials are under cropland 

April 2016 41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                           
Recebio: Task 5 

Germany  shows  a  consistently  small  amount  of  recycled  wood  being  driven  through 
the material route, with the majority going to the energy route. This is not fully in line 
with  the  wider  resource  efficient  drive  to  promote  collection  and  reuse,  where 
Germany has been in the forefront of promoting new policies. This may be due to the 
assumption of constant recycled wood. 

April 2016 42 

 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

April 2016 43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure 5.3.10: Wood flows in Germany. 

Land use development in Italy  
In  Italy,  the  most  noticeable  trend  is  the  decline  in  the  share  of  ‘other  natural  land’ 
and the increase in share of both used and unused forest and the emergence of SRC. 
The other natural land refers here to a mix of land (excluding that protected for nature 
conservation)  that  cannot  be  classified  to  any  of  the  other  classes  (abandoned 
cropland,  unused  grassland,  etc.).  In  Italy,  the  change  detected  in  this  land  class  is 
attributed  largely  to  abandoned  agricultural  land  which  changes  to  scrubland  and 
eventually  unmanaged  forest  since  the  area  of  land  in  agricultural  use  in  Italy  has 
been  declining  over  the  past  decade.  The  results  for  Italy  show  the  land  uses  of 
cropland,  SRC,  grassland  and  forestry  all  expanding  to  2030  and  other  natural  land 
contracting  by  over  3,500  ha.  A  prominent  trend  in  Figure  5.3.11  below  is  also  the 
expansion  of  forestry  in  Italy,  which  is  further  explored  in  Figure  5.3.12.  In  Figure 
5.3.12  it  is  seen  that  majority  of  the  increase  in  forest  land  in  Italy  results  from 
afforestation (reported as a cumulative afforestation since the year 2000). As seen in 
Figure  5.3.11,  most  of  this  new  forest  area  falls  under  the  unused  forest  category, 
indicating that most of this land use change is a result of natural afforestation rather 
than active efforts to increase the areas managed for timber production. An example 
of  such  natural  afforestation  is  abandoned  agricultural  land  converted  naturally  over 
time  to  the  ‘unused  forest’  category.  The  model  predicts  linear  afforestation  levels, 
reflecting the relatively linear historical trends noted for Italy in FAOSTAT. However, it 
is possible that over time the levels of afforestation would level off, in particular if this 
development was the result of conversion of abandoned agricultural land.  

For  Italy,  as  for  Germany,  there  is  significant  expansion  in  SRC  use  for  energy 
(shifting  from  0  ha  in  2020  to  186  thousand  ha  in  2050  (Figure  5.3.11  and  Figure 
5.3.13). However, cropland expansion in Italy is less prominent than in Germany. 

Figure 5.3.11: Land use development in Italy in the Baseline scenario. 

April 2016 44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Figure 5.3.12: Total forest area and the cumulative afforested area since 2000 in Italy. 

Sectoral development in Italy  
The  model  outputs  show  significant  domestic  impacts  in  terms  of  land  use  change  in 
Italy. However, the forest harvest level is not projected to increase notably: between 
2030  and  2050  it  will  even  turn  into  a  decline  (Figure  5.3.13).  Instead,  there  are 
noticeable  rises  in  roundwood  imports  (6.6  Mm3  in  2010  to  11.5  Mm3  in  2050)  and 
pellet imports (3.3 Mm3 in 2010 to 4.2 Mm3 in 2050). This implies a further reliance of 
the Italian biomass use and land use system on SRC and biomass imports, instead of 
forest harvests. 

In  Italy,  the  total  amount  of  wood  used  for  bioenergy  production  shows  the  same 
pattern as seen for Finland, with energy efficiency improvement decreasing the use of 
firewood between 2010 and 2030, and pulling down the total amount of wood used for 
energy. However, there is a clear increase of wood biomass used for energy after that: 
the total energy use of wood increases from 19 Mm3 in 2030 to 24 Mm3 in 2050. Most 
of  this  increase  results  from  the  development  of  SRC,  which  is  shown  to  develop  in 
Italy only after 2030. 

On the material side, wood used in the production of semi-finished woody products is 
projected to increase from a total of 13 Mm3 in 2010 to almost 18 Mm3 in 2050. As the 
domestic  harvests  decrease  slightly  over  this  time  period,  the  increase  is  sourced 
almost fully by increased roundwood imports. In Italy, sawnwood industry is projected 
to increase in line with what was seen in other case study countries as well. However, 
also  particleboard  production  increases,  and  the  energy  use  of  industrial  by-products 
is relatively smaller in Italy than in Finland or Germany.  

As  for  Germany,  the  level  of  recycled  wood  remains  low  within  the  analysis.  As 
discussed  earlier,  this  may  be  an  underestimate  in  the  long  run,  given  other  policy 
processes and emphasis on the wider bioeconomy and circular economy. 

April 2016 45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Table 5.3.13: Wood flows in Italy. 

April 2016 46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Future  trends  and  policies  –  key  points  identified  in  the  modelling 
analysis.  

Land use and land management developments 

The  shifts  in  land  use  identified  in  the  analysis  are  most  notable  in  Italy  with 
significant  decline  in  the  natural  land  category,  expansion  in  unused  forest  and 
expansion  in  SRC  areas.  The  latter  reflects  current  policies  encouraging  SRC  in  Italy 
and  there  are  precedents  for  poplar  expansion  in  northern  Italy  that  might  be  built 
upon.  The  model  predicts  significant  additional  expansion  in  SRC  land  and  there 
remains  a  question  over  the  likelihood  of  this  transition.  There  are  known  to  be 
potentially  significant  barriers  to  SRC  expansion  including  farmer  attitude  to  uptake. 
Also, the question of water availability was not addressed is this study, but should not 
be  neglected  in  the  case  of  Italy  were  local  water  availability  may  constraint  the 
development of SRC due to its inherent high water demand. Given that there already 
is locally low water availability in southern parts of Italy, the question remains if there 
are sufficient water levels for fulfilling future demand.  There is, therefore,  a question 
as to whether the significant increase in SRC predicted might actually occur. Moreover, 
the  land  use  changes  envisaged  in  natural  land  and  unused  forests,  due  to  natural 
afforestation and other abandonment processes, may also be subject to change were 
policies put in place to promote additional production or to cause market pressures to 
shift.  Changes  in  production  would  potentially  lead  to  abandoned  land  coming  back 
into  production.  Such  pressures  might  include  the  increasing  interest  in  advanced 
biofuel production in Italy, as associated policy support. While much of the emphasis is 
on waste and residue based fuels, these will commonly require additional energy crop 
based feedstocks to supplement and or balance supply. 

For Germany, the same queries could be raised regarding the SRC expansion as for 
Italy  i.e.  whether  the  price  and  policy  stimulus  are  strong  enough  to  overcome  the 
known  barriers  to  SRC  uptake.  This  would  impact  on  the  resource  base  in  Germany 
and Italy and may lead to different patterns of feedstock use and land use change – as 
investigated in the sensitivity analysis under Task 3.  

For  Finland,  land  use  is  anticipated  to  remain  largely  static  under  the  model 
outcomes  and  the  policy  assessment,  but  there  may  well  be  potential  changes  in 
management  practices  as  a  consequence  of  a  move  towards  an  expanded 
bioeconomy, however, the balance of land uses is anticipated to remain stable. There 
is also a potential for geopolitical issues to impact on levels of harvest and most likely 
land  management  decisions:  In  the  dispute  between  Russia  and  Europe,  Russia  has 
flagged  possible  sanctions  in  the  timber  trade.  This  would  potentially  impact 
significantly  on  elements  of  the  Finnish  woody  biomass  chain,  specifically  birch 
pulpwood  and  wood  chips  imported  from  Russia.  This  increases  uncertainty  and,  if 
action  were  taken,  would  change  potential  patterns  of  demand  and  hence  forest 
management decisions5.  

Sectoral developments 

In  all  there  three  countries  there  is  an  increasing  recognition  of  the  potential  future 
demand for new products and material/energy flows as part of a wider bioeconomy. In 
Germany, this has translated into efforts focused on: securing the sustainability of the 
wider  material  use  as  well  as  energy  use,  including  consideration  of  more  resource 

5 For further details see:  
http://yle.fi/uutiset/russian_forestry_sanctions_a_severe_blow_to_finland_industry_w
arns/8128848  

April 2016 47 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Recebio: Task 5 

efficient use of biomass; a bioeconomy strategy and research strategy and significant 
investment in novel biomaterials. In Finland, alongside interest in the wider economic 
potential of a bioeconomy (although arguably this is in many ways effectively in place 
already),  concern  over  the  impact  of  a  potential  expansion  of  lignocellulosic  biofuel 
production  on  the  wider  bioenergy  sector  for  heat  and  power  has  been  raised,  with 
strategies put in place to consider needs and conflicts. In Italy, biomass production is 
being  pushed  to  expand  energy  use,  however,  solid  bioenergy  is  not  the  only  driver 
with a stated desire to expand an emerging advanced biofuel industry. There is also a 
rising interest in the bioeconomy and bio-products.  

These  policies  and  trends  towards  action  on  the  wider  bioeconomy  may  change  the 
balance of inputs and feedstocks used into the future for material and energy uses. In 
particular  there  is  an  emphasis  on  increasing  the  use  of  recycled  wood,  but  also 
increased  focus  on  the  maximising  the  efficient  use  of  uncontaminated  industrial  by-
products emerging from the material use of lignocellulosic material.  

Conclusions 

The purpose of this task was to assess the current situation with respect to resource 
availability, use, and the associated policies in three contrasting case study countries. 
The  country-level  projections  by  GLOBIOM  have  been  reviewed  in  the  context  of 
current practices and national policies.  

From  a  resource  perspective,  the  three  countries  examined  here  have  contrasting 
situations.  In  Finland,  there  is  an  abundant  forest  resource  which  is  intensively 
managed  and  harvested.  There  is  a  highly  evolved  and  progressive  timber  and  pulp 
industry and renewable energy from wood is already in common use. There is not so 
much  scope  to  increase  SRC  outside  of  the  extreme  south  of  the  country  due  to  the 
climate. The resource situation was not predicted to change drastically over the course 
of the modelled period to 2050. In Germany, significant forest resources are available, 
but  slightly  less  intensively  managed  than  in  Finland.  However,  the  domestic  forest 
biomass  resources  are  still  sufficient  to  supply  a  very  active  wood  industry.  To  meet 
future  increases  in  bioenergy  demand,  GLOBIOM  found  that  the  agricultural  land  in 
Germany  may  provide  an  opportunity  for  increased  SRC  production.  In  Italy,  the 
forest area covers the same proportion of the country as for Germany. However, much 
of  this  forest  is  not  actively  managed  and  the  scale  of  the  wood  industry  is  smaller 
than in the other two case study countries. Model outputs showed a decrease in other 
natural land and an increase in the forested area over the time period of the project. 
From  a  policy  point  of  view,  the  policies  and  incentives  available  in  each  country 
generally reflect the particular resource availability. The emergence of an emphasis on 
the bioeconomy is evident in all three countries and there is an increasing recognition 
of  the  increasing  demand  for  new  products  and  material/energy  flows  as  part  of  this 
wider bioeconomy. For all three case study countries, the projected biomass use over 
time to 2050 was found to be in line with the current resources and policies in place.  

April 2016 48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

References 

Brus,  D.J.,  G.M.  Hengeveld,  D.J.J.  Walvoort,  P.W.  Goedhart,  A.H.  Heidema,  G.J. 
Nabuurs,  K.  Gunia,  2011.  Statistical  mapping  of  tree  species  over  Europe.  European 
Journal of Forest Research 131 (1): 145–157. 

Eggers, J., Lämås, T., Lind, T., & Öhman, K. (2014). Factors Influencing the Choice of 
Management  Strategy  among  Small-Scale  Private  Forest  Owners  in  Sweden.  Forests 
5(7): 1695-1716. 

European Commission (2008) Communication from the Commission: 20 20 by 2020 - 
Europe's  climate  change  opportunity,  COM(2008)30  -  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52008DC0030  

European  Commission  (2005)  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  Biomass 
action 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0628 

COM(2005)628 

plan, 

- 

Forest  Europe  2011:  State  of  Europe’s  Forests  2011  –  Status  and  Trends  in 
Sustainable  Forest  Management  in  Europe;  jointly  prepared  by  Forest  Europe  Liaison 
Unit Oslo, UNECE and FAO; Oslo 
http://www.foresteurope.org/filestore/foresteurope/Publications/pdf/Forest_Europe_re
port_2011_web.pdf 

Gallaun,  H.,  et  al.,  EU-wide  maps  of  growing  stock  and  above-ground  biomass  in 
forests  based  on  remote  sensing  and  field  measurements.  Forest  Ecol.  Manage. 
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.011 

Levers,  C.,  Verkerk,  P.  J.,  Müller,  D.,  Verburg,  P.  H.,  Butsic,  V.,  Leitão,  P.  J.,  … 
Kuemmerle,  T.  (2014).  Drivers  of  forest  harvesting  intensity  patterns  in  Europe. 
Forest Ecology and Management, 315, 160–172. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.030 

Mantau U., (2014). Wood flow analysis: Quantification of resource potentials, cascades 
and carbon effects. Biomass and Bioenergy 16, 29-38. 

Mantau, U. et al. (2010): EUwood - Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU 
forests. Final report. Hamburg/Germany, June 2010. 160 p.  

Official  Statistics  of  Finland  (OSF):  Energy  supply  and  consumption  [e-publication] 
2013. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 8.12.2014]. 
Access 
http://www.stat.fi/ajk/julkistamiskalenteri/kuvailusivu_fi.html?ID=10150 

method: 

Tulli customs (2015) Excise Taxation Customer Bulletin 21. May 2015, Table 1, pp. 2-
3 
http://www.tulli.fi/en/finnish_customs/publications/excise_tax/excise_taxation/021.pd
f 

UNECE/FAO, 2011. Joint Wood Energy Energy Enquiry 2011. 
http://www.unece.org/forests/jwee.html  

April 2016 49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recebio: Task 5 

Vilén, T., Gunia, K., Verkerk, P. J., Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M., Lindner, M., & Bellassen, 
V.  (n.d.).  Forest  Ecology  and  Management  Reconstructed  forest  age  structure  in 
Europe 1950 – 2010. 

VTT,  2015.  Cascading  use  of  wood  in  Finland–  with  comparison  to  selected  EU 
countries. VTT Research report VTT-R-03979-15. Access method: 
 http://www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2015/VTT-R-03979-15.pdf 

April 2016 50 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1     Table of Key Policies: FINLAND 

Policy title 

Nature  of  the 
measure 

the 
Summary  of 
measure,  its  goals 
and coverage 

Relevance 
biomass use 

to 

Potential 
consequences 
biomass 
use 

for 
resource 

Category 1 - directly drive or impact on the uptake of bioenergy from solid and gaseous sources 

National 
Energy Strategy (2013) 

Climate 

and 

Binding targets 

of 

regarding 

The  strategy  provides  the 
objectives proposed by the 
European  Commission  for 
Finland 
the 
reduction  of  emissions, 
promotion  of 
renewable 
energy, and enhancing the 
efficiency 
energy 
consumption,  require  new, 
prominent 
and 
energy policy measures. 
Increasing 
the  use  of 
renewable  energy  by  at 
least  25%  by  2015  and 
40% by 2025 
2020 
blending 
liquid fuel suppliers 
Replace  10%  of  natural 
biomass based solutions 

20% 
obligation 

biofuel 
on 

climate 

– 

http://www.tem.fi/files/36292/Energia-_ja_ilmastostrategia_nettijulkaisu_ENGLANNINKIELINEN.pdf  

Foresight 
Government 
Report 
Long-term 
on 
Climate  and  Energy  Policy 

Binding targets 

In  the  emissions  trading 
sector,  cutting  emissions 
on  the  EU  level  by  34  per 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2009) 

Energy 
Climate 
and 
Roadmap  2050  (October 
2014) 

of 

cent  from  2005  levels,  by 
2020. 
    Reducing  emissions  by 
16  per  cent  in  sectors  not 
covered  by  the  Emissions 
Trading  System 
(ETS) 
(such  as  construction,  the 
buildings, 
heating 
agriculture, 
housing, 
waste 
transport 
management, 
and 
greenhouse 
fluorinated 
gases 
industrial 
sources). 
    Increasing  the  use  of 
renewable  energy  to  38 
per  cent  of  final  energy 
consumption. 

from 

and 

kansio/2009/j28-ilmasto-selonteko-j29-klimat-framtidsredogoerelse-j30-climate_/pdf/en.pdf   

Roadmap and targets  The 

contains 

roadmap 

to  2050 
serves  as  a  strategic-level 
guide on the way toward a 
carbon neutral society. The 
roadmap 
an 
analysis  of  the  means  for 
the  construction  of  a  low-
carbon  society  and  an  80–
95% 
in 
greenhouse  gas  emissions 
in Finland from the level of 
The 
1990 
carbon-
building  of  a 
requires 
neutral  society 
activity on all levels. 

reduction 

2050. 

by 

See  pages  31-34 

for 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.tem.fi/files/41483/Energy_and_Climate_Roadmap_2050.pdf  

detailed 
Bioenergy in Finland 

discussion 

of 

Tax 
Finnish 
Reform (1st January 2011) 

Energy 

Tax 

The  Finnish  energy  tax 
reform changed the basis 
of  the  fuel  excise  tax: 
Fossil  fuels  and  biofuels 
are  subject  to  an  energy 
content  tax  proportionate 
to  their  energy  content, 
and  to  a  carbon  dioxide 
tax  based 
fuel's 
carbon dioxide emissions. 
This  gave  a  tax  incentive 
to 
components 
meeting the sustainability 
criteria. 

bio 

on 

The  act  on  sustainability 
of  biofuels  and  bioliquids 
(393/2013) 

Incentives:  Double 
Credit Biofuels 

Double credit biofuels will 
be those manufactured of 
waste 
residue 
and 
materials, as well as non-
food  cellulose  materials 
lignocellulose 
and 
materials. 

Bioethanol  produced 
in 
Finland  of  waste  and 
residue  materials  as  well 
as  biodiesel  produced  of 
logging  waste  meet  the 
criteria  for  double  credit 
biofuels. 
raw 
material  may  be  waste, 

Their 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
residue or other non-food 
cellulose 
and 
lignocellulose materials. 

The  life  cycle  emissions 
of  this  type  of  biofuels 
are as much as 80-90 per 
cent  lower  than  those  of 
fossil  fuels.  Increase  of 
biofuel 
domestic 
production  will  improve 
Finland's  energy 
self-
sufficiency  and  security 
of  supply  and  decreases 
the country's dependence 
on fossil fuels. 

http://www.tem.fi/en/energy/renewable_energy_sources/sustainability_of_biofuels_and_bioliquids  

Act  on  Production  Subsidy 
for  Electricity  Produced 
from  Renewable  Energy 
Sources (1396/2010) 

Feed in tariff 

Provisions  for  a  feed-in 
tariff  system  for  which 
power  plants  fuelled  with 
wind, biogas, forest chips 
and  wood-based 
fuels 
meeting  the  prescribed 
preconditions  could  be 
approved. 

the 

feed-in 

In 
tariff 
system,  an  electricity 
producer  whose  power 
plant  is  approved  in  the 
system  will 
receive  a 
subsidy (feed-in tariff) for 
a  maximum  of  twelve 
years.  The  subsidy  varies 
on  the  basis  of  a  three-

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
month  electricity  market 
price  or  the  market  price 
of emission allowances. 

http://www.tem.fi/en/energy/renewable_energy_sources/feed-in_tariff_of_renewable_energy  

Category 2 - Impact on the nature or extent of the feedstock base 

The  act  on  sustainability 
of  biofuels  and  bioliquids 
(393/2013) 

Sustainability  criteria 
feedstock: 
for 
Relates  to  EC  RES 
Directive  and  Fuel 
Quality Directive. 

lays 
on 

down 
The  Act 
the 
provisions 
sustainability  criteria  of 
biofuels  and  bioliquids 
energy 
made 
for 
purposes 
than 
also 
transport. 
specifies  procedures  to 
be 
in 
complied  with 
verifying  compliance  with 
sustainability criteria. 

other 
It 

The  Act  would  apply  to 
biofuels  and  bioliquids  in 
the 
accordance  with 
provisions  laid  down  in 
the  Act  on  the  Promotion 
of  the  Use  of  Biofuels  for 
Transport  and  the  Act  on 
Excise  Duty  on  Liquid 
Fuels  and  as  otherwise 
provided by law 

Sustainability 
criteria 
based  on:  GHG  emission 
reductions,  biodiversity, 
land  use, 
change  of 
agricultural raw material. 

http://www.tem.fi/en/energy/renewable_energy_sources/sustainability_of_biofuels_and_bioliquids  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Category 3 - Wider impact on the use of the biomass resource base 

Act  on  the  promotion  of 
the  use  of  biofuels  for 
transport (446/2007) 

Transport 

Under  the  Act  on  the 
promotion  of  the  use  of 
biofuels 
transport 
for 
(446/2007),  a  distributor 
of transport fuels liable to 
pay  tax  must  distribute 
biofuels  for  consumption. 
The  energy  content  of 
biofuels  must  account  for 
at  least  6.0  per  cent  of 
the  total  energy  content 
of  the  petrol,  diesel  oil 
and  biofuels  delivered  by 
the 
for 
distributor 
in  2011—
consumption 
(distribution 
2014 
obligation).  After 
that, 
the distribution obligation 
rises  steadily  up  to  20.0 
per cent in 2020. 

The  energy  contents  of 
biofuel  will  be  calculated 
to  satisfy  the  delivery 
obligation  twofold  if  the 
biofuel 
from 
is  made 
remains  or 
waste  or 
inedible 
or 
lignocellulose 
(double 
calculation). 

cellulose 

http://www.tem.fi/en/energy/renewable_energy_sources/obligation_to_distribute_biofuels  

Research 
Replacing 

Programme: 
with 
coal 

Research 

The  study  estimates  that 
by  2015,  about  6  TWh  of 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in 

pulverised 
biomass 
coal-fired  combined  heat 
and power plants 

coal could be replaced with 
biomass  fuels.  The  use  of 
coal will decrease once the 
planned  waste  incineration 
plants and multi fuel power 
plants 
been 
have 
completed.  The  annual 
consumption 
coal 
totalled  approximately  14 
TWh  at  the  power  plants 
studied. 

of 

http://www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2011/Finland_Karki.pdf    

Research 
Forest Energy 2020 

Programme: 

Research 

7 

(VTT 

The  five  year  (2012-2016) 
joint 
and 
research 
innovation  programme  at 
METLA 
Forest 
(Finnish 
Institute)  and 
Research 
Technical 
VTT 
of 
Research 
Finland). 
the 
forest 
span  of 
whole 
energy  value  chain  from 
biomass production, supply 
chain  to  conversion  plant 
and end use. 

Centre 
It  covers 

Main aims  
• 
new 
creating 
and 
technology 
business  opportunities 
for 
growing 
forest energy markets. 
profound 
knowledge for biobased 
sustainable 
development. 

•  producing 

rapidly 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  developing 

innovative 
concepts  and  products 
combining  energy  and 
material  use  of  woody 
biomass. 

Covers  whole  span  of 
forest  energy  value  chain 
from  biomass  production, 
supply  chain  to  conversion 
plant and end us 
Study  of  impacts  of  forest 
biomass production 
issues  such  as 
Covers 
CHPC  and  biofuels 
for 
transport,  bioenergy,  and 
biorefineries 

http://www.forestenergy2020.org/en/home/  

http://www.forestenergy2020.org/en/projects/  

Programme: 
Research 
FIBIC Bioeconomy Cluster  

Research 

8 

in 

Centers 

Bioeconomy 
Finnish 
Cluster  FIBIC  is  one  of  six 
Strategic 
for 
technology  and 
science, 
Finland 
innovation 
(SHOK).  The  aim  of  FIBIC 
is  to  turn  science  and 
technology into sustainable 
bio-based solutions 
Ongoing 
BEST 
– 
Bioenergy  Solutions 
Tomorrow 
FuBio  JR2  –  FuBio  Joint 
Research 2 
FuBio  –  Products 

Sustainable 
for 

from 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Dissolved Cellulose 
ACel  –  Advanced  Cellulose 
to Novel Products 
Closed projects 
EffFribre  –  Value  through 
intensive 
Efficient 
and 
Fibre Supply 
EffNet 
Efficient 
– 
Networking  Towards  Novel 
Products and Processes 

http://issuu.com/fibicluster 

Research 
Low Carbon Finland 2050 

Programme: 

Research 

energy 

VTT’s 
project 
strategic 
“Low Carbon Finland 2050” 
gathered  VTT’s  technology 
experts  in  clean  energy 
production,  smart  energy 
infrastructures,  transport, 
buildings,  and 
industrial 
systems as well as experts 
in 
system 
foresight. 
modelling  and 
The 
synthesis 
projects 
report  Low  Carbon  Finland 
2050  –  VTT  clean  energy 
technology  strategies  for 
in 
society, 
November  12th,2012 
in 
VTT  Visions  publication 
series,  is  a  summary  of 
VTT’s  findings  on  the  role 
of  new 
in 
moving Finland sustainably 
low  carbon 
towards  a 
economy. 

technologies 

published 

The  analysis  has  been 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
which 

“Onni” 

scenario. 

creating 
contributed  by 
three  different  low  carbon 
“Tonni”  and 
storylines, 
for 
“Inno”  and 
are 
Finland, 
compared  to  the  business-
The 
as-usual 
analysis 
includes 
systematic  modelling  and 
assessments  of  the  whole 
including 
energy 
energy 
fuel 
production, 
energy 
infrastructures  and  end 
buildings, 
use 
transportation, 
and 
industries. 

chain, 
and 

in 

http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/visions/2012/V2.pdf  

Finnish  National  Public 
Procurement  Policy 
for 
Products 
Wood-Based 
(2010) 

GPP 

Impacts  on the types of 
wood/biomass  products 
public 
by 
bought 
services. 

http://www.tem.fi/files/28240/Finnish_National_Public_Procurement_Policy_for_Wood-
Based_Products_web.pdf  

Finnish  National 
Strategy 2010 

Food 

Food waste 

Reducing  food  waste  and 
investing in biotechnology 

https://biobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/generated/files/policy/Finland%20Food%20for%20Tomo
rrow%20Strategy.pdf  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2      Table of Key Policies: GERMANY 

Policy title 

Nature  of  the 
measure 

Summary  of 
the 
measure,  its  goals 
and coverage 

Relevance 
biomass use 

to 

Potential 
consequences 
biomass 
use 

for 
resource 

Category 1 - directly drive or impact on the uptake of bioenergy from solid and gaseous sources 

National  Biomass  Action 
Plan for Germany 2009 

Strategy  paper  with 
number  of  binding 
targets 

1 

the 

Compliments 
EU 
Biomass  Action  Plan,  and 
Energy 
Climate 
and 
to 
Package 
of 
increase 
in 
renewable 
primary use 

targets 
share 
energy 

It 

available 
also 

Sets out the potential 
for  the  use  of  biomass  in 
Germany, quantifies the 
biomass share in meeting 
current demand and 
identifies 
reserves. 
describes the 
government’s 
German 
towards 
strategies 
promoting  bioenergy  use 
in  the  heating,  electricity 
and  fuel  sectors,  and  the 
measures  it  intends  to 
take 
implementing 
them  
double 

share  of 

the 

in 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
bioenergy  in  Germany’s 
energy supply by 2020. 
Increasing  the  share  of 
renewable 
in 
electricity  production  to 
at  least  30  percent  by 
2020. 

energy 

Increasing  the  share  of 
renewables-generated 
heat from the current 6.6 
percent to 14 per cent by 
2020. 

http://www.bmel.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/750066/publicationFile/41337/BiomassActionPlan.pdf 

Renewable 
Sources 

Energy 

Binding Act 

EEG 2000 
EEG  2014  (1st  August 
2014) 

number  of  updates  until 
August 

EEG 
Umweltact 2013 

Energie 

and 

It  lays  out  legislation  for 
renewable 
energy, 
German 
including 
equivalent  of  a  feed  in 
trariff 

2 

of 

and 

The  EEG  2014  aims  to 
constantly 
cost 
increase  the 
effectively 
renewable 
share 
in  the 
energy  sources 
German 
electricity 
to 
supply. 
Section  1  para.  2  EEG 
2014,  renewable  energy 
shall account for 

According 

in 

    40%  to  45%  of  the 
the 
share 
gross 
electricity 
consumption 
by 2025 
    55%  to  60%  by  2035 
and 
    for 80% by 2050. 

Renewable 
Sources 
contains 

Energy 
Act 
(EEG) 
sustainability 

According  to  Section  3 
EEG  2014  the  individual 
expansion corridor targets 
are as follows: 

Onshore  wind  power:  net 
annual  growth  corridor 
target of 2500 MW 
Offshore  wind  power: 
reduction  of  the  national 
targets  for  offshore  wind 
power from 10 GW to 6.5 
GW  by  2020  and  from  25 
GW to 15 GW by 2030 
Solar power: gross annual 
growth  corridor  target  of 
2500 MW 
Biomass:  gross  annual 
growth  corridor  target  of 
100 MW 

Notable 

reduction 

of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
bonuses for biomass use 

requirements for biomass 
and 
be 
these  must 
in  a 
further  defined 
separate 
sustainability 
ordinance.  The  German 
government’s 
draft 
sustainability 
standards 
for  biofuels,  which  will 
finalise 
these 
requirements  and  govern 
monitoring  activities,  are 
now  being  reviewed  in 
line 
EU 
Sustainability Directive. 

with 

the 

Costs  of  the  EEG  system 
are 
to 
distributed 
electricity  consumers  via 
the 
EEG 
so-called 
Surcharge (EEG-Umlage). 
Details of this reallocation 
can be found in the 2010 
Scheme 
Equalisation 
Ordinance 
(Verordnung 
zur  Weiterentwicklung 
bundesweiten 
des 
Ausgleichsmechanismus  - 
AusglMechV) 
the 
Scheme 
Equalisation 
Ordinance 
Execution 
zur 
(Verordnung 
der 
Ausführung 
zur 
Verordnung 
des 
Weiterentwicklung 
bundesweiten 
Ausgleichsmechanismus 
(Ausgleichsmechanismus-

and 

3 

 
 
http://mediathek.fnr.de/media/downloadable/files/samples/e/e/eeg-amendment2012.pdf 

Ausführungsverordnung  - 
AusglMechAV). 

Largely  increase  use  of 
biomass  for  heating,  but 
placed some sustainability 
criteria 

Renewable  Energy  Heat 
Act 

Erneuerbare-Energien-
Wärmegesetz 
(EEWärmeG) (2014) 

to 

Comparable 
the 
EEG  but  with  focus 
on  energy  used  for 
heating 

The  Renewable  Energies 
Heat  Act  (Gesetz  zur 
Förderung  Erneuerbarer 
im 
Energien 
Wärmebereich 
– 
EEWärmeG) 
promotes 
increase  of  heat 
the 
generated 
from 
renewable energy to 14% 
by 2020. 
Whilst  nearly  half  energy 
use 
in  Germany  goes 
towards  heating  only  6% 
of  this  is  renewable,  and 
mostly comes from wood.  
For  new  buildings 
it 
provides  a  prescribed 
percentage  of  renewable 
for  old 
energy,  and 
are 
buildings 
for 
requirements 
retrofits. 

there 

Requirements  depend  on 
the  type  of  renewable 
energy, for new builds: 
Thermal solar: 15% 
Geothermal and biomass, 
bioenergy: 50% 

The  Renewable  Energy 
out 
Heat 

sets 

Act 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
sustainability 
requirements for the type 
of    biomass  used.  For 
example,  palm  and  soya 
  produced  under 
oil 
nonsustainable  conditions  
may  not  be  used 
to 
comply  with  the  Act’s  
obligations 
use 
to 
renewable energy. 

Also  creation  of  Market 
Incentive 
to 
for 
provide 
renewable  heating  and 
cooling systems 

Program 
incentives 

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/eew_rmeg/gesamt.pdf 

Combined Heat and Power 
Act 

Binding  act  affecting 
grid operators 

Provides 
incentives 
creating CHP systems 

for 

on 

the 

law 

The 
maintenance, 
modernisation 
and 
expansion  of  combined 
heat  and  power  (CHP) 
generating 
systems 
obliges the grid operators 
to  provide  a  connection 
to  their  grid  for  the  CHP 
plants  and  units  listed  in 
the law and to accept the 
CHP  electricity  generated 
by  these  CHP  plants  and 
units in their grid. 

the 
The  price  which 
operator of the CHP plant 
or  unit  and 
the  grid 
operator  agree  for  this 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
electricity  has  to  be  paid 
in addition to a surcharge 
stipulated  in  the  law  and 
dependent on the type of 
CHP plant or unit. 

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kwkg_2002/index.html  

Energy  Concept  (2010) 
and 2011 Energy Package 

BMWi  2010  Energy 
Concept 

Foresees  increase  use  of 
increased 
biomass  but 
sustainability criteria 

Important  measurable 
the  Energy 
criteria  of 
Concept: 

reduction 

The 
greenhouse-gas 
emissions, 

•  Renewable 

of 

energies'  share  in 
gross  final  energy 
consumption, 
•  The  proportion  of 

from 

electricity 
generation 
renewable 
energies  in  gross 
electricity 
consumption and 

•  Primary 

energy 

consumption 

German 
The 
2010 
government’s 
Energy  Concept  specifies 
that  renewable  energies 
are  to  account  for  18 
percent  of  gross 
final 
energy  consumption  by 
2020  and  60  percent  by 
2050 across all sector 

also 

a 
reduces 
But 
number  of  bonuses 
in 
relation to biomass which 
were 
to  earlier 
linked 
versions of the EEG.  

Describes  conditions  for 
biomass. 
sustainable 
to 
for 
Calls 
minimise 
uses  which 
compete with food.  

need 

biomass 
Nevertheless 
and  biogas  assumed  to 
have  a  more  prominent 
role  in  both  heating  and 
electricity production. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
uptake 

Increase 
renewable 
including biomass 

of 
energies, 

Market 
Programme (MAP) 

Incentive 

the 
of 
Part 
EEWärmeG  provides 
financial 
incentives 
for  new  builds  and 
retrofits 
incorporating 
renewables. 

renewables-

Promote 
generated heat 
€500  million 
period 2009 to 2012. 

for 

the 

Provide  financial  support 
for the following:  
panels, 
Solar 
Automatically 
fed 
combustion  systems  for 
low  emission 
biomass, 
wood 
glassifcation, 
efficient  heat  pumps, 
systems, 
geothermal 
district  heating  networks 
powered  on  renewables, 
biogas pipelines. 

For  biogas  plants  up  to  a 
capacity of 350 Nm³/h  of 
upgraded 
are 
entitled  to  a  grant  of  up 
to  30  percent  of  the 
investment costs. 

biogas 

http://www.erneuerbare-
energien.de/EE/Navigation/DE/Foerderung/Beratung_und_Foerderung/Marktanreizprogramm/marktanreiz
programm.html 

Category 2 - Impact on the nature or extent of the feedstock base 

Biomass-electricity-
sustainability 
ordinance(BioSt- 
NachV) 

Sustainability  criteria 
for bioenergy 

7 

has 

Germany 
been 
among the top runners in 
implement 
trying 
sustainability  criteria  for 
biofuels 

to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
used 

The  BioSt-NachV  shall 
liquid 
ensure 
that 
biomass 
for 
electricity  production  and 
paid  for  under  the  EEG 
regime  will  comply  with 
binding  ecological  and 
social 
sustainability 
standards.  It  establishes 
a  biomass  certification 
scheme. 

except 

The  ordinance  will  enter 
into  force  on  24  August 
2009, 
for 
provisions 
regarding 
certification  (§§  24  and 
34  BioSt-NachV)  which 
will  enter  into  force  on  1 
January 2010. 

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/biost-nachv/index.html 

Voluntary 
Industrial 
Certification  Scheme 
for  Renewable  Raw 
Materials 

of 

Initiative  on  Sustainable 
Provision 
Raw 
Materials  for  the  Material 
Use of Biomass” (INRO) 
is  to  reach  an  agreement 
with 
industry  on 
voluntary  certification  of 
renewable 
resources 
before primary 
processing 

the 

http://www.inro-biomasse.de/en.htm 

http://www.inro-biomasse.de/documents/INROOnlineBrochure.pdf 

8 

for 

Initiative 
the 
Sustainable Supply of Raw 
the 
Materials 
Industrial  Use  of  Biomass 
(INRO) 

for 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Category 3 - Wider impact on the use of the biomass resource base 

National  Strategy  for  the 
Bioeconomy (2013) 

Strategic 
document 

policy 

Nationale 
Bioökonomie (2013) 

Politikstrategie 

It sets out the strategy of 
the  German  government 
on  how  to  develop  a 
bioeconomy 

National 
Strategy 
Bioeconomy 2030 (2010) 

Research 
the 

for 

Nationale 
Forschungsstrategie 
BioÖkonomie (2010) 

http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/NatPolicyStrategyBioeconomy.pdf?__blob=
publicationFile  

Strategic 
document 

research 

It sets out the strategy of 
the  German  government 
on  how  to  development 
and 
research 
development  projects  to 
allow  the  bioeconomy  to 
develop 

http://www.bmbf.de/pub/Natinal_Research_Strategy_BioEconomy_2030.pdf  

Biomass-electricity-
sustainability 
(BioSt- 
NachV) 

ordinance 

Sustainability  criteria 
for bioenergy 

has 

Germany 
been 
among the top runners in 
implement 
trying 
sustainability  criteria  for 
biofuels 

to 

used 

The  BioSt-NachV  shall 
liquid 
ensure 
that 
biomass 
for 
electricity  production  and 
paid  for  under  the  EEG 
regime  will  comply  with 
binding  ecological  and 
social 
sustainability 
standards.  It  establishes 
a  biomass  certification 
scheme. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
except 

The  ordinance  will  enter 
into  force  on  24  August 
2009, 
for 
regarding 
provisions 
certification  (§§  24  and 
34  BioSt-NachV)  which 
will  enter  into  force  on  1 
January 2010. 

National  Action  Plan  for 
the  Sustainable  Use  of 
Plant Products  

http://www.bmel.de/EN/Agriculture/Plants/_Texte/AktionsplanPflanzenschutzmittel.html?nn=529662 

for 

Initiative 
the 
Sustainable Supply of Raw 
Materials 
the 
Industrial  Use  of  Biomass 
(INRO) 

for 

Voluntary 
Industrial 
Certification  Scheme 
for  Renewable  Raw 
Materials 

of 

Initiative  on  Sustainable 
Provision 
Raw 
Materials  for  the  Material 
Use of Biomass” (INRO) 
is  to  reach  an  agreement 
with 
industry  on 
voluntary  certification  of 
resources 
renewable 
before primary 
processing 

the 

http://www.inro-biomasse.de/en.htm 

http://www.inro-biomasse.de/documents/INROOnlineBrochure.pdf 

Fraunhofer  Center 
Chemical 
Biotechnological 
Processes (CBP) 

for 
and 

Research 
Programme 

institute/ 

10 

at 

under 
Currently 
the 
construction 
chemical  site  in  Leuna 
(Saxony-  Anhalt).  After 
completion  in  2012,  this 
a 
will 
‘biorefinery  development 
centre’  aimed  at  pro-

function 

as 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plant Biotechnology of the 
Future (2011) 

the  appropriate 
viding 
for 
framework 
connections 
between 
research  and  industry  in 
the  context  of  ambitious 
projects.  
The  CBP  Leuna  will  be 
financed  by  the  German 
federal 
government 
(BMBF,  BMELV,  BMU), 
the  state  of  Saxony-
Anhalt, 
the 
Fraunhofer Society. 

and 

Research programme  The  “Plant  Biotechnology 
of  the  Future”  research 
initiative  was  launched  in 
2011  as  the  successor  to 
the  national 
research 
program  GABI  (Genome 
Analysis  in  the  Biological 
System  of  the  Plant)  and 
involves 
public 
institutions  and  private 
enterprises 
(public-
private  partnership).  Its 
focal  areas  of  research 
are: 

(1)  Increasing  yields  and 
yield stability in crops 

(2) 
selecting quality traits 

Creating 

and 

Sustainable 

(3) 
cultivation. 

crop 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.kws.de/aw/KWS/company_info/Company/Research_and_Breeding/Cooperation/Publicly_fund
ed_projects/~evom/_Plant_Biotechnology_of_the_Future_rese/ 

Forest 
(2011) 

Climate 

Fund 

Funding 

The  Federal  Government 
has provided the financial 
basis 
the 
for 
establishment  of  a  forest 
climate  fund  in  the  draft 
Federal  Budget  for  2012. 
to  be 
Resources  are 
allocated  amounting  to 
Euro  35  million  per  year 
for  the  fund,  which  is  to 
be  set  up  by  1  January 
2013  under 
joint 
patronage  of  the  Federal 
Ministries  of  Agriculture 
and of the Environment. 

the 

to 

The  funds  are  to  be  used 
especially 
for 
to  plan 
restore 
to 
schemes 
balanced landscape water 
resources, 
better 
adjust  to  climate  change, 
to  maintain  and  secure 
forest  mires,  to  establish 
new  carbon-rich  riparian 
and moist forests, as well 
as  to  set  up  reference 
areas, but also to expand 
the 
reduction 
potential  of  wood.  There 
are  also  plans  to  prevent 
and 
the 
cope  with 
occurrence  of  large-scale 
damage  such  as  storms 

CO2 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
forest 

fires. 
research, 

or 
Additionally, 
monitoring, 
communication 
and 
knowledge transfer are to 
be supported. 

http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2011/138-AI-
ForestClimateFund.html?nn=313124  

http://www.waldklimafonds.de/  

New  Products  Made  from 
Nature  

Federal Initiative 

Promotes 
multiple/innovative  uses 
for biomass 

http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Broschueren/NeueProdukteNaWaRoImAlltag.pdf?__blob=pu
blicationFile 

Too good for the bin 

Federal Initiative 
https://www.zugutfuerdietonne.de/ 

Discourage food waste 

CCS  plants  can  often  be 
powered by biomass. 

National 
implementation of EU 
CCS 
Directive 
2009/31/EC 

CCS Act (2012) 

Gesetz  zur  Demonstration 
von 
und 
Anwendung 
Technologien 
our 
Abscheidung,  zum  Transport 
dauerhaften 
und 
zur 
Speicherung 
von 
Kohlendioxid – KSpG 

13 

Lays  out  guidelines  for 
the  sustainable  use  of 
CCS.  Based  on  this  CCS 
Act,  two  of  the  twelve 
EU-wide 
CCS 
projects 
demonstration 
eligible  for  funding  are 
expected  to  be  built  in 
Germany 
2020, 
providing permanent CO2 
storage. 
storage 
A 
project  for  industrial  CO2 
emissions  (e.g.  a  joint 
from 
project 
industrial biomass) is also 
The 
planned. 

for  CO2 

by 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
demonstration  stage  will 
to  aid 
be  evaluated 
decisions 
the 
potential  commercial  use 
of CCS technology. 

about 

http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/101/1710101.pdf 

National Climate Initiative  Funding 

instrument. 
Mostly  infrastructure 
in 
projects 
Germany 
in 
developing countries 

both 
and 

The 

a 
and 

Since  early  2008,  funds 
accrued  from  the  sale  of 
emissions 
trading 
certificates  have  been 
used  to  finance  a  climate 
mitigation 
change 
initiative.  Some  €400 
million  was  available  in 
initiative 
2008. 
national 
comprises 
section 
an 
international  section.  The 
aim  is  to  exploit  existing 
for  emission 
potential 
reductions  with 
cost-
effective measures and in 
broader  scope,  and  to 
promote  model  projects. 
Promotion 
focuses  on 
climate  change  activities 
which  serve  to  increase 
energy  efficiency,  foster 
use  of  renewable  energy 
and optimise biomass use 
in  energy,  heat  and  fuel 
production. 

http://www.klimaschutz.de/  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Mobility  and  Fuels 
Strategy  of  the  German 
Government  (MFS)  (June 
2013) 

Strategy  paper 
biofuels 

for 

transport 

Sets  agenda  for  biofuels 
in 
sector. 
Presents opportunities for 
competition 
over 
against 
feedstocks 
biomass uses 

http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Anlagen/UI-MKS/mfs-strategy-final-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile  

Forest 
(2011) 

Strategy 

2020 

Discusses  competition  for 
wood  as  a 
feedstock. 
Calls  for  an  increase  in 
the  use  of  “full 
tree 
harvesting”  (timber,  bark 
and  crown)  partiocularly 
for  use  in  bioenergy.  But 
also  dicusses  issues  with 
nutrient 
increase 
soil 
depletion. 
erosion.  

and 

Need  for  cohesion  with 
Biomass action plan 

http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/ForestStrategy2020.pdf?__blob=publication
File 

Federal  Emission  Control 
Act 

Binding 

BImSchV/BlmSchG  (Bundes-
Immissionsschutzgesetz) 

legislation 

in 
Multiple 
relation  to  air  pollution, 
noise, vibrations. 

legislation 
Multiple 
issues,  small 
covering 
boilers, 
power 
large 
plants,  biofuels,  etc    etc 
1-39 

to 

competing 
Relates 
feedstocks,  some  issues 
relating to biomass 

Mobility 
and 
Strategy (2011) 

Fuels 

Strategy Paper 

Focus  on  mobility  issues. 
Highlights  potential 
for 
biofuels  in  the  mobility 
sector,  but  also  many  of 
its limitations. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Artikel/UI/the-federal-government-s-mobility-and-fuel-
strategy.html?nn=37306  

the 

relates 

outside 

The  Sustainable  biofuels 
to 
ordinance 
biofuels/liquids  formed  in 
or 
EU. 
Determines if they can be 
included  as  part  of  the 
EEG.  Provides  a  number 
for 
of 
criteria 
raw 
qualification:  only 
materials 
from 
cultivation 
sustainable 
included, 
can  be 
raw 
materials 
from  primary 
forests  are  excluded.  Has 
since 
been 
January  2011,  since  then 
all  biofuels  must  meet 
the criteria. 

force 

in 

Sustainable-biofuels 
ordinance 
NachV) 

(Biokraft-

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Key Policies: ITALY 

Policy title 

Nature  of  the 
measure 

Summary  of  the 
measure, its goals 
and coverage 

Relevance 
biomass use 

to 

Potential 
consequences 
biomass 
use 

for 
resource 

Category 1 - directly drive or impact on the uptake of bioenergy from solid and gaseous sources 

Sector 
Bioenergy (2014) 

Plan 

for 

[Piano  di  Settore  per  le 
Bioenergie (2014)] 

tool 

The  Sector  Plan  sets 
out 
strategic 
direction in the field 
of  bioenergy.  It  is  a 
strategic 
to 
engage  and  guide 
and 
government 
farmers  towards  the 
development 
of 
sustainable 
bioenergy.  This 
done through: 

is 

1)  Dissemination 
good 

of 
practices; 
2)  Adjustment, 

harmonisation 
and 
simplification 
of 
and 
legislation; 
3)  Enhancement 

national 
regional 

and expansion 
of research. 

1 

of 

The  plan  in  question  is 
intended 
the 
summarize 
to: 
strengths  and  weakness
es 
bioenergy, 
strategies,  goals  for  the 
threats, 
future, 
opportunities 
and 
economic 
implications; define shar
ed 
strategies  and  identify 
possible 
specific 
interventions with effect
ive  and  appropriate  legi
slative 
policies,  economic  and 
the 
trade 
long 
medium 
term; propose appropria
te  support  measures  to 
sustainable 
enhance 
in 
the 
bioenergy 
long 
and 
medium 
the  more 
term, 
framework  of 
general 

in 
and 

in 

Italian 

Walter  Righini,  president 
renewable 
of 
producers 
energy 
FIPER 
association 
commented: 
‘We  hope 
[the  report]  is  the  first 
the 
towards... 
step 
increased  use  of 
large 
forests  for  energy  and 
wood  production’.  Further 
be 
information 
gathered  at  the  following 
link 
(in 
English):  http://www.end
swasteandbioenergy.com/
article/1307079/call-
action-bioenergy-italy  

can 

role 

The  Sector  Plan  foresees  a 
major 
the 
forestry 
agriculture  and 
sectors  in  the  production 
of energy. 

of 

it 

particular, 

is 
In 
emphasised  that  biomass 
has  to  be  produced  or 
made  available  by 
the 
recovery  of  agro-forestry 
agro-industrial 
and 
residues. 
Biomass 
production  should  aim  to 
avoid  the  generation  of 
competition 
conflicts  or 
with 
feed 
and 
food 
In  addition, 
production. 
is 
the 
recognised as an important 
source of biomass. (p. 17) 
Residual  biomass  is  also 
recognised as an important 
for  bioenergy 
resource 
production. 

sector 

forest 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
training 

the  multi-functionality 
of agriculture; prepare a 
plan  for  communication 
to  be 
and 
in 
carried 
collaboration  with  the 
regions  to  make  the 
social 
policy 
of 
sustainability 
of 
bioenergy feasible. 

out 

The  main  priority  of 
the  Sector  Plan  is  to 
set out the necessary 
conditions 
to  allow 
the  bioenergy  sector 
to  help  achieving  the 
objective  set  out  in 
the  National  Plan  for 
Renewable 
Energy 
Sources. 

This  document 
is 
likely  to  serve  as  a 
platform  to  launch  a 
participatory  process 
to 
review  sectorial 
legislation  and create 
an  all-encompassing 
national 
framework 
on bioenergy. 

that 

is  stated 

crop  and 

the 
It 
production  of  biomass  for 
energy  must  rely  primarily 
on 
livestock 
waste  and  residues,  and 
on  processing  of 
food 
Secondly, 
products. 
dedicated  energy 
crops 
can be used. (p. 17) 

The development of biogas 
production  is  encouraged 
through the use of residual 
biomass  and/or  dedicated 
crops. (p. 29) 

Environmentally 
productions 
sustainable 
are 
encouraged 
also 
through  incentives  to  new 
technologies  such  as  the 
production  of  bioethanol 
from 
ligno-cellulosic 
biomass  and  bio-methane. 
(p. 30) 

Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Food  and  Forestry  (2014)  Sector  Plan  for  Bioenergy.  Bioenergy  and  the  Italian 
agricultural sector. [Ministero delle politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali (2014) Piano di Settore per le 
Bioenergie. 
l’agricoltura 
italiana] http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/7891 

bioenergetiche 

filiere 

Le 

e 

National 
Strategy (2013) 

Energy 

[Strategia 
Nazionale (SEN) (2013)] 

Energetica 

is 

The  National  Energy 
Strategy 
a 
strategic 
reference 
for  national  energy 
the 
policies 
medium-long 
term, 
aiming  to  define  the 

in 

The  Energy  Strategy 
identifies 
four  main 
objectives  and  seven 
priorities 
characterizing 
the 
Italian  energy  sector 
going forward. 

energy 

Given  the  20%  target  for 
renewable 
by 
2020,  it  is  recognised  that 
the  achievement  of  this 
goal 
the 
replacement  of  part  of  the 
existing  plants  fuelled  by 

is  related 

to 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in 

in 

of 

such 

boilers, 

evolution 

fuels  with 
conventional 
new  installations  and  to 
the 
the 
obligation  of  integration  of 
the 
renewables 
construction  sector.  It  is 
predicted 
the 
that 
coming  years  the  share  of 
technologies, 
as 
will 
biomass 
increase.  (p.  72)  For  this 
reason,  it  is  acknowledged 
that  particular  attention 
needs  to  be  dedicated  to 
the 
of 
promotion 
investments in the national 
forest  sector,  in  order  to 
increasing 
the 
face 
demand  of  biomass 
for 
energy  production  (and  of 
second  generation  biofuels 
from biomass). 

Measures  assessing 
the 
potential  use  of  marginal 
land  for  energy  purposes 
are  also  envisaged,  given 
that  marginal  land  is  not 
suitable 
food 
production or breeding and 
competition  would 
be 
avoided. (p. 82) 

for 

of 
priorities 
going forward. 

action 

The  Energy  Strategy 
establishes  a  target  of 
for 
20%  by  2020 
renewable 
energy; 
thus,  going  beyond 
what  established  by 
the  National  Plan  for 
Renewable 
Energy 
Sources (17%). 

The  key  objectives 
include: 
1)  Reducing  the  gap 
of  cost  for  energy 
for  consumers  and 
enterprises, 
aligning  it  to  the 
European average; 
and 
the 
exceeding 
objectives  set 
in 
the  2020  Climate 
package; 
3)  Securing 
supply 
reducing 
dependency; 

energy 
and 
energy 

2)  Meeting 

4)  Favouring 

sustainable 
economic 
growth 
through the energy 
sector. 

The seven priorities by 
2020 include: 
•  Energy efficiency; 
•  Competitive 

gas 
market  and  south 
European hub; 

•  Sustainable 

•  Development 

development 
of 
renewable energy; 
of 
infrastructure  and 
electricity market; 

•  Restructuring 

of 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
refining  and 
distribution 

the 
fuel 
network; 
•  Sustainable 
production 
national 
hydrocarbons; 
•  Modernization 
system 

of 

of 
of 

the 
governance. 
Ministry of Economic Development (2013) National Energy Strategy. 
[Ministero 
Energetica 
Sviluppo 
Nazionale]  http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/images/stories/normativa/20130314_Strategia_Energeti
ca_Nazionale.pdf 

Economico 

Strategia 

(2013) 

dello 

Law 

on 
Decree 
for 
Incentives 
biomethane 
injected 
into  the  natural  gas 
grid (2013) 

[Decreto  legislativo  sulle 
Modalità  di  incentivazione 
del  biometano 
immesso 
nella rete del gas naturale 
(2013)] 

The 
Decree 
establishes incentives 
biomethane 
for 
production, according 
to 
guidelines 
contained  in  Decree 
Law n. 28 of 3 March 
2011 

the 

Decree 
for 

Law 
The 
provides 
the 
possibility  to  incentivise 
of 
the 
production 
biomethane 
in 
cogeneration  plants,  to 
be  used  in  transport  or 
to  be  injected  into  the 
national gas grid. In the 
first 
cases, 
incentives are already in 
place,  whereas  in  the 
third,  a  new  incentive 
will be introduced.  

two 

Presidential Decree of 5 December 2013 on Incentives for biomethane injected into the natural gas grid 
[Decreto presidenziale del 5 Dicembre 2013 sulle Modalità di incentivazione del biometano immesso nella 
rete  del  gas  naturale]  http://www.ambienteterritorio.coldiretti.it/tematiche/Urbanistica-Territorio-
Paesaggio/Documents/g.u.%2017%20-%20decreto%20biometano.pdf   

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The 
establishes 
incentives 
production 
electricity 
renewable 
later 
December 2012. 

Decree 
new 
for  the 
of 
from 
sources 
31 

than 

The  Decree  establishes 
two  different  incentive 
mechanisms.    An  all-
encompassing  tariff  for 
power  plants  up  to  1 
MW and an incentive for 
power  plants  beyond  1 
MW,  which  do  not  opt 
for 
all-
the 
encompassing rate. 

Law 
for 

on 
Decree 
the 
Incentives 
production 
of 
electricity from plants 
fuelled  by  renewable 
energy  sources  other 
than 
photovoltaic 
(2012) 

[Decreto 
sull’incentivazione 
produzione 
elettrica  da 
fonti 
dai fotovoltaici (2012)] 

Ministeriale 
della 
energia 
di 
impianti  a 
rinnovabili  diversi 

Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012 on the Implementation of Article 24 of the legislative decree of 3 March 
2011, n. 28 containing incentives for the production of electricity from plants fuelled by renewable energy 
sources  other  than  photovoltaic.    [Decreto  Ministeriale  del  6  Luglio  2012  sull’Attuazione  dell’art.  24  del 
decreto  legislativo  3  marzo  2011,  n.  28,  recante  incentivazione  della  produzione  di  energia  elettrica  da 
dai 
impianti 
fotovoltaici] http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2012/07/10/12A07628/sg  

rinnovabili 

diversi 

fonti 

a 

Decree  Law  on  the 
of 
Implementation 
Directive  2009/28/EC 
on  the  promotion  of 
the  use  of  energy 
from 
renewable 
sources (2011) 

The  Decree 
Law 
translates  Directive 
2009/28/EC 
into 
national law defining, 
in 
particular, 
sustainability  criteria 
for  bioliquids  and 
biofuels. 

[Decreto 
concernente 
della 

legislativo 
l’attuazione 
Direttiva 

The  Decree  Law  defines 
the  tools,  mechanisms, 
and  incentives,  as  well 
as  the  institutional,  fina
ncial 
legal 
and 
framework,  necessary  t
achieve 
o 
for 
the 
2020  with  regard 
to 
the  overall  share  of 
energy  from  renewable 
sources  (out  of  gross 
energy 
final 

objectives 

5 

to 

24 

establishes 
Article 
incentivize 
measures 
the 
of 
production 
electricity  from  renewable 
sources  installed  after  31 
December 2012. 

is 

incentive 

‘The 
to 
promote  the  efficient  use 
of  waste  and  by-products, 
of  biogas  from  livestock 
waste  or  by-products  from 
agro-food, 
agriculture, 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
sulla 
2009/28/EC 
promozione  dell’uso  di 
energia 
fonti 
rinnovabili (2011)] 

da 

farming 
agro-industrial, 
and  forestry  activities,  of 
products  obtained 
from 
non-food  crops,  as  well  as 
sustainable  biomass  and 
bioliquids, biogas produced 
from 
contracts 
frameworks  and  industry 
agreements.’ 

to  biomass  plants, 
As 
including 
using 
those 
biodegradable  waste,  the 
maximum incentive cannot 
exceed, 
partial 
for 
refurbishing,  80%  and,  for 
total  refurbishing,  90%  of 
the  incentive  given  to  new 
plants. 

consumption)  and  the 
share 
renewable 
of 
energy in transport. 

target 

for 
Italy’s 
renewable 
energy 
generation  is  17%  by 
2020. 

The  Decree  establishes 
a new incentive system, 
beginning  1 
January 
2013, based on a set of 
general  criteria  and  to 
be 
by 
implemented 
ministerial  decrees.  The 
new  incentives  will  aim 
to  ensure  a  return  on 
investment 
and 
operation costs. Specific 
criteria are indicated for 
biogas,  biomass  and 
sustainable bioliquids. 

For  power  plants  not 
exceeding  5  MW,  the 
incentive  is  going  to  be 
diversified  according  to 
the  energy  source  and 
to power. 

Decree Law n. 28 of 3  March 2011 on the Implementation of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of 
the  use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources,  modifying  and  repealing  Directives  2001/77/EC  and 
2003/30/EC  [Decreto  Legislativo  n.  28  del  3  Marzo  2011    in  Attuazione  della  direttiva  2009/28/EC  sulla 
promozione  dell’uso  dell’energia  da  fonti  rinnovabili,  recante  modifica  e  successiva  abrogazione  delle 
direttive 
and 
2003/30/CE] http://www.governo.it/Governo/Provvedimenti/testo_int.asp?d=62612 

2001/77/CE 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plan 

National 
Renewable 
Sources (2010) 

for 
Energy 

[Piano di Azione Nationale 
per  le  fonti  rinnovabili  di 
energia (PAN) (2010)] 

The Decree of 15 March 2012 
defines regional objectives as 
to renewable energy sources, 
according  to  the  objectives 
set  out  in  the  National  Plant 
for 
Energy 
Sources. 

Renewable 

on 

The  National  Plan  for 
Renewable 
Energy 
strategic 
provides 
direction 
the 
measures  to  put  in 
place,  in  the  context 
transport, 
of 
electricity, 
heating 
and  cooling  sectors, 
in  order  to  achieve 
the  17%  renewable 
target 
energy 
established  by 
the 
Directive  2009/28/EC 
for Italy. 

The  National  Plan  for 
Renewable 
Energy 
Sources  provides  an 
overview of the national 
renewable 
policy  on 
energy,  describing  the 
objectives  (e.g.  energy 
socio-
security, 
economic 
and 
environmental  benefits) 
and  the  main  lines  of 
action. 

In  addition,  the  Plan 
analyses 
the  main 
actions and tools for the 
development 
of 
energy 
renewable 
sources.  In  particular, 
current 
future 
and 
incentives are analysed. 

7 

of 
sector, 

The  Plan  contains  several 
novelties  in  relation  to  the 
the 
development 
electricity 
the 
upgrading  of  the  heating 
and  cooling  sectors,  and 
special  emphasis  on  the 
use  of  biomass.  Besides 
solar energy, it is expected 
the  biggest 
to  provide 
share 
the 
renewables  by  2020.  It  is 
stressed  that  the  energy 
from 
produced  by  Italy 
renewable sources by 2020 
(+15  Mtoe)  will  derive  for 
half  from  biomass  (+7.6 
Mtoe),  the  use  of  which 
will  have  to  increase  by 
more  than  three  times. 
(See  Tables  1  and  2  in 
Annex 1) 

amongst 

aiming 

Chapter 4.6 is dedicated to 
measures 
to 
promote the use of energy 
from 
These 
biomass. 
include: 
•  Measures  to  encourage 
the use of unused land, 
and 
degraded 
other 
(See 
Strategic 
National 
Rural 
for 
Plan 
Development  2007  – 
2013,  and  regional 
for 
Programmes 

land 

land 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Use 

of 

from 

Rural Development); 
primary 
already 
materials 
for  energy 
available 
such  as 
production, 
waste  and  residues,  as 
dictated  by  the  Waste 
Framework 
Directive 
2009/98/EC.  Electricity 
the 
production 
biodegradable 
fraction 
of waste may benefit of 
the  incentives  for  the 
production of electricity 
from 
renewable 
sources; 
Incentives 
the 
production  and  use  of 
biogas 
(Green 
Certificates  and  all-
inclusive tariff); 

for 

• 

•  Measures  to  enhance 
forest 
management 
and  to  optimise  the 
sustainable  extraction 
of  forest  biomass  (See 
Strategic 
National 
Plan 
Rural 
for 
Development  207  – 
2013  and  regional 
Programmes 
for 
Rural Development). 

Ministry for Economic Development (2010) National Plan for Renewable Energy Sources. [Ministero dello 
rinnovabili 
azione 
di 
Sviluppo 
dell’Italia] http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/images/stories/recuperi/Notizie/Piano.pdf 

Economico 

nazionale 

energie 

(2010) 

Piano 

per 

le 

8 

 
 
 
on 
2/2009 
Law 
incentives  for  energy 
and 
efficiency 
in 
installations 
buildings (2009) 

2/2009 

sugli 
[Legge 
l’efficienza 
incentivi  per 
energetica 
di 
apparecchiature  in  edifici 
(2009)] 

e 

law  provides 
The 
incentives  aimed  at 
reducing 
energy 
requirements, 
thermal 
improving 
of 
insulation 
buildings, 
the 
installation  of  solar 
the 
panels 
of 
replacement 
winter 
heating 
systems. 

and 

Replacing  existing  boilers 
with  a  biomass  boiler  can 
benefit from a deduction of 
55%  (maximum  30,000€), 
provided  compliance  with 
certain requirements. 

Conversion into law, with amendments, of Decree-Law  of 29 December 2008, n. 185, containing urgent 
measures to support families, work, occupations and businesses and revisit as an anti-crisis the national 
strategic  framework  [Conversione  in  legge,  con  modificazioni,  del  decreto-legge  29  Novembre  2008,  n. 
185, recante misure urgenti per il sostegno a famiglie, lavoro, occupazioni e impresa e per ridisegnare in 
funzione anti-crisi il quadro strategico nazionale] http://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/09002l.htm  

benefits 

Tax 
district 
(Several 
amongst 
Finance Act (2009)) 

for 
heating 
norms, 
which 

the 

Several  norms  have 
defined 
tax 
benefits in favour  of 
district 
biomass 
heating, 
amongst 
which  Financial  Act 
(2009). 

il 

fiscali  per 

[Benefici 
teleriscaldamento 
(Numerose  norme,  tra  cui 
Legge 
Finanziaria 
(2009))] 

The 
end 
user  who 
purchases  energy 
from 
biomass-fuelled 
heating 
certain 
in 
networks 
municipalities  is  entitled  to 
a tax deduction of 0,02582 
€/kWh.  The  user  is  also 
one-off 
entitled 
reduction 
of 
20,6583€/kWh  of  power 
installed on the connection 
costs. 

to 

a 

Law 22 December 2008, no. 203  on Provisions for the formulation of the annual and multi-annual state 
budget (Finance Act 2009) [Legge del 22 dicembre 2008, n. 203 sulle Disposizioni per la formazione del 
bilancio 
Finanziaria 
2009)] http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/08203l.htm  

pluriennale 

annuale 

(Legge 

Stato 

dello 

a 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finance Act (2008) 

[Legge 
(2008)] 

Finanziaria 

Decree 

Modifying 
Law 
79/1999  on  the  matter  of 
Green Certificates 

Financial  Act 
The 
in 
approved 
December 
2007 
contains  a  series  of 
structural 
interventions 
regarding  equity  and 
development. 

10 

Act 
Financial 
The 
provides  the  legislative 
framework  for  the  year 
2008 on 

•  Financial 

provisions; 
•  Provisions 
revenues; 
•  Provisions 

on 
internal matters. 

on 

According 
to  Decree 
Law  79/1999  and  as 
modified  by  the  Finance 
Law 
each 
2008, 
producer  of  electricity 
from  renewable  sources 
is assigned a number of 
Green 
Certificates 
related to the amount of 
energy 
produced, 
including  biomass.  Such 
producers 
the 
Certificates to producers 
of  energy 
from  non-
renewable  sources  for 
is 
which 
an 
there 
to  buy  or 
obligation 
auto-generate 
a 
percentage  of  energy 
from 
renewable 
sources. 

resell 

as 

to 
Alternatively, 
power  plants  fuelled  by 
energy 
renewable 
not 
sources 

and 

coefficients 

The  Finance  Act  introduces 
several 
of 
differentiation  in  order  to 
privilege  some  sources  and 
to 
reduces 
others. 

incentives 

The  Ministerial  Decree 
18/2008  establishes  that 
the  production  of  electricity 
fuelled  by 
from  plants 
is 
sources 
renewable 
entitled 
Green 
to 
Certificates  according  to  a 
system 
coefficients, 
called K, superior or inferior 
to  1.  Biogenic  waste 
is 
assigned  a  coefficient  of 
1,10. (p. 212) 

of 

Biomass 
biogas 
and 
produced  from  agricultural 
activities,  livestock  and  the 
in  high 
forestry 
sector 
cogeneration 
efficiency 
of 
plants  with 
thermal 
in 
agriculture  are  assigned  a 
coefficient of 1.3. (p. 212) 

energy 

re-use 

Biomass  produced  in  the 
context 
industry 
of 
agreement  (as  defined  by 
Decree  Law  102/2005)  or 
within  70  km 
the 
processing  plant  is  assigned 
a coefficient of 1,8. 

from 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
exceeding  1  MWe,  an 
all-encompassing 
tariff applies. 

tariff 

inclusive 

The 
for 
biogas  and  biomass  (either 
local  or  imported)  power 
liquid 
(excluding 
plants 
biofuels  with  the  exception 
of 
is 
equivalent to 0,28€ / kWh. 

vegetable 

oil) 

these 

provisions 
All 
remained  valid  until  31 
December 2012. 

Provisions for the formulation of annual and multi-annual budget (Finance Act 2008). [Disposizioni per la 
Finanziaria 
pluriennale 
formazioni 
(2008))] http://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/07244l.pdf  

bilancio 

(Legge 

annual 

Stato 

dello 

del 

e 

Law 
for 

Decree 
on 
the 
Incentives 
production  of  biogas 
(2007)  

Legge 

[Decreto 
sugli 
Incitivi  alla  produzione  di 
biogas (2007)] 

Law 

The  Decree 
established 
incentives 
for  the 
production  of  biogas 
and  energy  produced 
from biomass. 

Decree 

Law 
The 
the 
encourages 
production  of  electricity 
from  plants  fuelled  by 
and  biogas 
biomass 
from 
produced 
agricultural, 
livestock 
and  forestry  products, 
including  by-products, 
through the provision of 
Green Certificates. 

Convention into law, as amended, of Decree Law of 1 October 2007, n. 159, on urgent action in economic 
and financial matters,  for development and social fairness. [Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del 
decreto-legge 1 Ottobre 2007, n. 169, recante interventi urgenti in materia economico-finanziaria, per lo 
sviluppo e l’equità sociale] http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/07222l.htm 

Finance  Act  (2006) 
subsequent 
and 
modifications  (Decree 
296/2006, 
Law 

The 
Financial  Act 
contains  a  series  of 
structural 
interventions 
to  set 
order 

in 
the 

In  order  to  encourage  the 
renewable 
production  of 
energy 
agricultural 
enterprises, the Finance Law 
sets  out  that  the  production 

by 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finance Act (2007)) 

budget 
2007. 

for 

year 

[Legge  Finanziaria  (2006) 
e  successive  modifiche 
(Decreto Legge 296/2006, 
Legge 
Finanziaria 
(2007))] 

out 

carried 

and  sale  of  electricity  and 
heat  from  renewable  agro-
forestry  (and  photovoltaic) 
plants 
by 
farmers,  as  well  as  biofuels 
products 
and 
constitute 
(bioplastics) 
producing 
activities 
agricultural 
income, 
raw 
that 
provided 
materials  used  come  from 
the property. 

chemical 

the 

Provisions for the formulation of annual and multi-annual budget (Finance Act 2007). [Disposizioni per la 
Finanziaria 
formazioni 
(2007))] http://www.altalex.com/?idnot=34980  

pluriennale 

bilancio 

(Legge 

annual 

Stato 

dello 

del 

e 

Law 
26/2007 
implements  Directive 
96/2003 
restructuring  the  EU 
framework 
on 
taxation  of  energy 
products 
and 
electricity. 

Consolidated  Law  on 
Excise  Duty  (1995), 
as modified by Decree 
Law n. 26/2007 

[Testo  Unico  sulle  Accise 
(1995),  aggiornato  con  le 
modifiche  del  Decreto 
Legge  n.  26/2007  (in 
applicazione  alla  direttiva 
comunitaria 
sulla 
tassazione  dei  prodotti 
energetici] 

12 

to  Article  52, 

According 
electricity produced 
•  By  plants  powered  by 
renewable 
sources 
(including  biomass)  with 
maximum  power  of  20 
kW; 

•  By  generators  powered 

by biogas 

are  not  subject  to  excise 
duty. 

sources 

Also,  the  energy  produced 
by  plants  powered  by 
renewable 
and 
exceeding 20 kW, consumed 
for  self-production  in  local 
businesses and planes other 
than  dwellings,  are  exempt 
from excise duty. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Consolidation  Act  of  laws  concerning  taxes  on  production  and  consumption  and  related  criminal  and 
administrative  penalties,  approved  by  Legislative  Decree  October  26,  1995,  n.  504  [Testo  Unico  delle 
disposizioni legislative concernenti le Imposte sulla Produzione e sui Consumi e relative sanzioni penali e 
amministrative, 
n. 
504.]  http://www.actasrl.com/pdf/TESTO%20UNICO%20DELLE%20ACCISE%20%202007%2006%2001
%20-%20ULTIMO%20AGGIORNAMENTO%20AL%2001-06-2007.pdf  

Legislativo 

approvato 

Decreto 

Ottobre 

1995, 

con 

26 

Consolidated  text  on 
environmental 
regulations.  Decree 
Law (2006) 

Establishes 
framework 
environmental 
regulation.  

a 
for 

As  relevant,  part  IV 
implements  Directive 
(Waste 
2008/98/EC 
Framework Directive) 

[Testo  Unico  Ambientale. 
legislativo  sulle 
Decreto 
Norme 
natura 
ambientale (2006)] 

di 

Part  IV  defines  wastes  and 
by-products  (Articles  183 
and  184)  as  relevant  to  the 
production  of  energy  and  to 
the 
the 
authorisation  procedure  for 
plants fuelled by biomass. 

definition 

of 

The  uncertainty  around  the 
inclusion  of  certain  types  of 
lingo-cellulosic  biomass,  as 
well  as  manure, 
the 
definition  of  waste  creates 
interpretation  problems  in 
of 
application 
the 
authorization  procedures  to 
energy recovery plants. 

in 

Decree Law 3 April 2006, n. 152 Consolidated Text on Environmental Regulations [Decreto legislativo del 
in  materia  ambientale]  http://www.ambienterosa.net/wp-
3  Aprile  2006,  n.  152  su  Norme 
content/uploads/2014/11/Decreto-legislativo-3-aprile-2006-aggiornato-alla-Legge-116-2014.pdf  

Value 
Tax 
(VAT) – Several Laws 

Added 

Indirect 
energy 
and energy products 

taxes  on 
consumption 

indirette 

[Imposte 
sul 
valore  aggiunto  (IVA)  – 
Varie norme] 

13 

Presidential 
decree 
633/1972,  as  modified,  
establishes the following: 
•  Reduced rate of 10% for 
of 
for 
mining 
and 

the 
electricity 
households, 
agricultural 
manufacturing 

production 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
companies  and  for  sale 
to wholesale customers; 
rate  on  Green 

•  21% 

Certificates; 

•  Reduced  10%  rate  on 

forest biomass; 

•  Reduce 10% rate for the 
purchase of services and 
supplies  of  equipment 
and  materials  related  to 
the  supply  of  thermal 
energy  for  domestic  use 
through  district  heating 
networks. 

Presidential Decree of 16 October 20172, no. 633 on Introduction and implementation of value added tax 
[Decreto  del  Presidente  della  Repubblica  del  16  Ottobre  1972,  n.  633  su  Istituzione  e  disciplina 
dell’imposta 
http://www.normattiva.it/uri-
res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.del.presidente.della.repubblica:1972-10-26;633!vig=  

aggiunto] 

valore 

sul 

Category 2 - Impact on the nature or extent of the feedstock base 

Sector 
Bioenergy (2014) 

Plan 

for 

[See 
Category 1] 

above 

– 

[See  above  –  Category 
1] 

[Piano  di  Settore  per  le 
Bioenergie (2014)] 

It  is  suggested  that  an 
effort must be made in the 
introducing 
direction  of 
short 
crops 
rotation 
(herbaceous  or  arboreal 
plants with a short harvest 
cycle). 

This  implies,  in  the  short 
term,  the  introduction  of 
allochthonous  material 
and, in the medium term, 
the 
a  commitment 
improvement  of  it.  (p. 
22) 

to 

It  is  suggested  that  the 
for  new  genetic 
search 
materials 
be 
should 
directed  to  favour  those 
high 
characterised 
growth  autonomy  or  event 
those  with  high  ability  to 

by 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
colonize, 
demand 
nutritional input. 

reducing 
for 

the 
additional 

Species that can guarantee 
a  prolonged  coverage  of 
the  ground  should  also  be 
prioritised,  as  they  have 
long  harvest  cycles  and 
become 
are 
interlayers  in  the  annual 
cycle 
conventional 
crops. (p. 22) 

able 

to 

of 

Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Food  and  Forestry  (2014)  Sector  Plan  for  Bioenergy.  Bioenergy  and  Italian 
agriculture.  [Ministero  delle  politiche  agricole,  alimentari  e  forestali  (2014)  Piano  di  Settore  per  le 
Bioenergie. 
l’agricoltura 
italiana] http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/7891 

bioenergetiche 

filiere 

Le 

e 

Decree Law on Urgent 
tackle 
measures 
to 
and 
environmental 
industrial 
emergencies (2013) 

Legge 

su 
[Decreto 
urgenti 
Disposizioni 
dirette 
fronteggiare 
emergenze  ambientali  e 
industriali (2013)] 

a 

Such lands are expected to 
be  used  for  the  production 
of energy crops. 

Law 

The  Decree 
establishes 
provisions  to  address 
environmental 
emergencies  (related 
to 
waste 
management)  in  two 
i.e. 
Italian  regions, 
Campania and Puglia. 

Article  1  establishes  the 
technical 
conduct  of 
investigations 
the 
for 
mapping  of  land  used 
in 
agriculture 
for 
Campania. 
is 
It 
expected  the  indication 
of  land  that  cannot  be 
allocated 
food 
production,  as  well  as 
that  destined  to  certain 
agri-food productions. 

to 

Decree  Law  10  December  2013,  n.  136  on  Urgent  measures  designed  to  tackle  environmental 
emergencies  and  industrial,  and  to  promote  the  development  of  the  affected  areas.    [Decreto  Legge  10 
Dicembre  2013,  n.  136  su  Disposizioni  urgenti  dirette  a  fronteggiare  emergenze  ambientali  e  industriali 
http://www.normattiva.it/uri-
aree 
ed 
res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto-legge:2013-12-10;136!vig=  

interessate] 

sviluppo 

favorire 

delle 

lo 

a 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Strategic 
National 
Plan 
Rural 
for 
Development  2007  – 
2013 (2010) 

Programme  designed 
in  the  framework  of 
Common 
the 
Agricultural 
Policy 
(CAP) 

[Piano 
Strategico 
Nazionale  per  lo  Sviluppo 
Rurale  2007  –  2013 
(2010)] 

The  Plan,  aiming  at 
assessing  the  state  of 
health  of  the  PAC,  was 
renovated  with  new 
strategic  objectives  and 
resources 
be 
sectors 
allocated 
‘climate 
such 
‘renewable 
change’, 
and 
energy’ 
‘biodiversity’. 

as 

to 

to 

• 

The  Plan  is  divided  into 
four axes: 
• 

Improving 
the 
competitiveness  of 
the  agricultural  and 
forestry sector; 
Improving 
the 
environment and the 
countryside; 
•  Quality  of 

in 
rural 
and 
areas 
diversification  of  the 
rural economy; 

life 

support 

The Plan provides targeted 
investment 
for 
afforestation of agricultural 
land  and  non-agricultural 
as 
land, 
conversation  of  land  for 
forestry  and  agro-forestry 
systems. 

well 

as 

policies 

The  Plan  also  promotes 
agricultural 
to 
dedicated 
support 
short 
production 
(e.g. 
also 
rotation 
coppice), 
the 
through 
of 
use 
marginal 
land,  and  the 
collection  of  residues,  i.e. 
straw. 

Finally,  policies  to  support 
the  sustainable  use  of 
forest are promoted. 

•  Leader. 

Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Forestry (2010) National Strategic Plan for Rural Development 2007 – 
2013.  [Ministero  delle  Politiche  Agricole,  Alimentari  e  Forestali  (2010)  Piano  Strategico  Nationale  per  lo 
Sviluppo Rurale] http://www.reterurale.it/downloads/cd/PSN/Psn_21_06_2010.pdf  

(regional) 
Programmes for Rural 
Development  2007  – 
2013 

16 

Four 
are 
measures 
directed  to  the  production 
of  energy  from  renewable 
sources: 
•  Measures  121  and  311 
include actions directed 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Programmi  di  Sviluppo 
Rurale 2007 – 2013] 

Proposals  for  regional  Rural 
Development 
Programmes 
for  the  period  2014  –  2020 
are  being  examined  by  the 
European Commission. 

17 

to  support  investments 
in 
power 
plants; 

biomass 

•  Measures  123  and  221 
regulate  the  biomass 
production phase. 

for 
/ 

financing 
and 

Measure  121  allows  the 
direct 
the 
or 
purchase 
construction  of  plants  not 
exceeding  1  MW  for  the 
production  of  electricity 
and  heat  from  biomass, 
provided  that  the  energy 
produced  is  mainly  within 
the 
This 
company. 
provides  funding  equal  to 
40% of overall investment. 

Measure  123  targets  the 
company  operating  within 
the  supply  chain  which 
process  and  /  or  market 
forestry 
agricultural  and 
providing 
by 
products, 
remuneration  for  the  sale 
of biomass raw material. 

Measure  221  finances  the 
afforestation of agricultural 
land. 

311 

includes 
 Measure 
different 
of 
interventions  aimed  at  the 
rural 
diversification 

types 

of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for 

including 
activities, 
the 
measures 
production  energy 
from 
renewable  sources.  Such 
the 
measure  relates 
construction  of  biomass 
plants  not  exceeding  1 
maximum 
MW. 
The 
contribution  amounts 
to 
200,000€. 

to 

Each region designed a specific Programme for Rural Development. 

Framework 
Programme 
Forestry 
(2008) 

for 

the 
Sector 

[Programma Quadro  per il 
Settore Forestale (2008)] 

The 
Frameowrk 
for  the 
Programme 
Forestry  Sector  is  a 
strategic document 
setting  out  the  main 
the 
priority 
forestry sector  

in 

It  promotes  sustainable 
forest  management  and 
the  use  of 
incentivises 
biomass 
energy 
production 

for 

Framework 

The 
Programme 
encourages  sustainable 
forest  management  in 
order 
to 
protect the territory, mit
igating 
climate 
change,  activating  and 
strengthening the forest 
and 
industry 
ensuring  the  long-term, 
multi-functionality  and 
diversity 
forest 
resources. 

of 

Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Food  and  Forestry  and  Ministry  of  the  Environment,  Land  and  Sea  (2008) 
Framework Programme for the Forestry Sector [Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentary e forestali e 
Ministero  dell’Ambiente  e  della  tutela  del  territorio  e  del  mare  (2008)  Programme  Quadro  per  il  Settore 
Forestale] http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2826 

Category 3 - Wider impact on the use of the biomass resource base 

Decree 
Updating 
conditions, 

Law 

on 
the 
criteria 

The  Decree  Law  sets 
binding  targets  for 
for 
release 
the 

The Decree Law updates 
the  conditions,  criteria 
for 
procedures 
and 

Law 
Decree 
The 
establishes  binding  quotas 
from  2015 
for  biofuels 

The  introduction  of  sub-
targets 
advanced 
for 
biofuels  from  2018  will 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
consumption 
biofuels 
advanced 
from 2015. 

of 
and 
biofuels1 

for 
and  procedures 
implementing 
the 
obligation  to  release 
for 
biofuels 
of 
consumption, 
including 
biofuels (2014) 

advanced 

[Decreto 
legge 
sull’Aggiornamento  delle 
condizioni,  dei  criteri  e 
di 
delle 
attuazione    dell’obbligo  di 
immissione  in  consumo  di 
biocarburanti 
compresi 
quelli avanzati (2014)] 

modalità 

the 
implementing 
release 
obligation 
to 
for 
biofuels 
consumption, 
including 
advanced  biofuels,  and 
determines 
the 
years  beyond  2015  the 
minimum quota and the 
among 
breakdown 
of 
different 
biofuels, 
including 
advanced biofuels. 

types 

for 

onwards.  These  amounts 
to 5% of total consumption 
of  petrol  and  diesel 
in 
2015, 5.5% in 2016, 6,5% 
in  2017,  7,5%  in  2018, 
9% in 2019 and 10% from 
2020. 
also 
The 
establishes 
for 
advanced biofuels in petrol 
and  diesel 
from  2018, 
equal to 1,2% in 2018 and 
2019,  1,6%  in  2020  and 
2021 and 2% in 2022. 

Decree 

quotas 

an 

for 

increasing 
drive 
demand 
those 
materials  (i.e.  biogenic 
waste,  agriculture  and 
residues,  etc), 
forestry 
potentially 
competing 
with other material uses. 

Ministry  of  Economic  Development  (2014)  Decree  Law  of  10  October  2014  on  Updating  the  conditions, 
criteria and procedures for implementing the obligation to release  of  biofuels for consumption, including 
advanced  biofuels,  GU  General  Series  n.  250  of  27  October  2014.  [Ministero  dello  Sviluppo  Economico 
(2014)  Decreto  del  10  Ottobre  2014  sull’Aggiornamento  delle  condizioni,  dei  criteri  e  delle  modalità  di 
attuazione  dell’obbligo  di  immissione  in  consumo  di  biocarburanti  compresi  quelli  avanzati,  GU  Serie 
Generale 
Ottobre 
http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2014/10/27/14A08212/sg;jsessionid=Td-
2014] 
ZpiaG3SdUmyv9LgREhQ__.ntc-as5-guri2b  

250 

del 

27 

n. 

1  Advanced  biofuels  are  defined  in  the  Decree  Law  as  follows:  ‘Biofuels  and  other  fuels  produced  exclusively  from  the  raw  materials  listed  in  Annex  3,  Part  A.  These 
materials  include:  algae,  the  biomass  fraction  of  municipal  waste,  organic  waste,  the  fraction  of  biomass  corresponding  to  industrial  waste,  straw,  animal  manure  and 
sewage  sludge,  tall  oil,  crude  glycerine,  bagasse,  marc  and  wine  lees,  shells,  hucks,  corncob,  the  fraction  of  biomass  waste  and  residues  from  forest  industry  (bark, 
branches,  products  of  pre-commercial  thinning,  leaves,  needles,  crowns,  sawdust,  chips,  black  liquor,  brown  slurry,  sludge  fibres,  lignin,  tall),  other  cellulosic,  non-food 
materials, including residues  of food crops and annual feed (straw, shells, leaves, stems, stalks and corncobs), dedicated crops (Panicum Virgatum, Miscanthus, Arundo 
Donax),  waste  materials  coming  from  industrial  processes  (residues  of  food  crops  or  animal  feed),  and  organic  waste;  Other  lingo-cellulosic  materials  made  of  lignin, 
cellulose and hemicellulose, such as residual wood biomass, dedicated energy crops, residues and wastes from wine production, except sawn logs, Renewable liquid and 
gaseous fuels from non-biological origin. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Sector 
Bioenergy (2014) 

Plan 

for 

[See above – Category 
1] 

[See above – Category 
1] 

[Piano  di  Settore  per  le 
Bioenergie] 

of 

an 

One  of  the  key  horizontal 
priorities  of  the  Plan  is the 
inter-
creation 
ministerial  round  table  on 
Green  Chemistry  defining 
and 
strategies 
the 
opportunities 
development 
bio-
products,  in  the  context  of 
the  European  bio-economy 
strategy.  No  prioritisation 
is given to any specific bio-
products. (p. 20) 

for 
of 

Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Food  and  Forestry  (2014)  Sector  Plan  for  Bioenergy.  Bioenergy  and  Italian 
agriculture.  [Ministero  delle  politiche  agricole,  alimentari  e  forestali  (2014)  Piano  di  Settore  per  le 
Bioenergie. 
l’agricoltura 
italiana] http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/7891 

bioenergetiche 

filiere 

Le 

e 

of 
Memorandum 
understanding  for  the 
creation  of  a  project 
‘Sustainable 
on 
chemistry’ (2013) 

[Protocollo di intesa per la 
un 
realizzazione 
progetto  di  sviluppo  della 
sostenibile 
chimica 

di 

Memorandum 
understanding 

of 

The  initiative  aims  to 
promote 
important 
projects  in  the  field  of 
chemistry 
industrial 
renewable 
from 
sources,  which  will 
producing 
allow 
second 
third 
generation biofuels. 

and 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2013)] 

Plan 

National 
Renewable 
Sources (2010)  

for 
Energy 

[Piano di Azione Nationale 
per  le  fonti  rinnovabili  di 
energia (PAN)] 

Memorandum  of  understanding  for  the  creation  of  a  project  on  ‘Green  chemistry’  (2013)  [Protocollo  di 
intesa 
sostenibile 
della 
progetto 
(2013)] http://www.governo.it/Governo/ConsiglioMinistri/dettaglio.asp?d=70231  

realizzazione 

sviluppo 

chimica 

per 

un 

di 

di 

la 

[See above – Category 
1] 

[See above – Category 
1] 

is 

foreseen 

It 
the 
possibility  for  biomass  and 
bioliquids  the  introduction 
for  purposes 
of  priority 
other  than  energy  and,  if 
energy, 
destined 
for 
between 
discrimination 
those  destined 
the 
to 
production  of  heat  or  the 
use  in  transport  and  those 
destined 
electrical 
for 
purposes.  As  to  the  latter, 
it  is  suggested  to  favour, 
in  particular,  the  use  of 
waste  biomass 
co-
generation plants. (p. 8) 

in 

In addition, as to biomass, 
particular  attention  will  be 
devoted to the dynamics of 
the  cost  of  raw  material 
and 
costs, 
pursuing  a  convergence  of 
the  intensity  of  support 
with  European  trends.  (p. 
9) 

operating 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
K
H
-
0
2
-
1
6
-
5
0
5
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

doi:10.2779/968246